ALC System replacement top 5 reasons

[control$]

Physically impossible. MSTP (IEA-485) has limitation of 127 masters and a total of 255 per bus if using slaves as well. And ALC mac addressing only goes to 99 , how are other 500+ controllers addressed on the bus?

kontrol out

On 52 routers. My point being if the customer requested the site to be MS/TP...it would be MS/TP. It's not a reason not to use ALC, and cheaper then starting over. Hang anything on the bus, proprietary argument gone. You already have all the programming,graphic,database software built in.

[kontrolphreak]

Only issue is that older generation (S/UNI/M/LGR) only do ARC156 or CMnet. Yes on current generation (SE/ZN/ME/LGR) you can set them up as MSTP, but this is no help for the OP.
Also doing this MSTP/ARC156 conversion after the initial install would entail taking all the controllers off the network, set jumpers at each controller (those VAV boxes will be fun), change the network type in Sitebuilder then reconnect all the controllers. I don't feel that many if any non-ALC technician/programmers could accomplish this without some hiccups.

If we get this moved to Pro I could add some more "issues", but not happening out here.

kontrol out

[hotrod53]

SOME UNIs are obsolete, Uni 16 and 32 are still somewhat around, LGEs are still available too, UNI 59s and 30s are long gone. All of these controllers that you mention are still supported as far as repairable. As mentioned, the emulator driver allows you to put a ZN right on your U network too. U341V+ were good controllers except for the damper motor failures, ZNs are more reliable. U cards were a sub area type network which I never cared for but it worked, if you expand and use ZNs it will be nmore reliable and faster. Your U net is max 38.8K baud with an even slower sub area network, the ZN is 156K baud.

You can replace it all with something else, but IMO you get what you pay for. I don't think that you'll find a more versitile system. All of your current equipment can be run on current WebCtrl 5.5 software. ALC also just relaxed the rules of zone module controllers therefore making them even more flexible.

I know the Service Manager in Atlanta, he's a good guy, is that who you're dealing with?

[xarralu]

...I don't think that you'll find a more versitile system. All of your current equipment can be run on current WebCtrl 5.5 software. ALC also just relaxed the rules of zone module controllers therefore making them even more flexible.

The OP stated the site is worried about controller failure and not being able to find replacements, but there is and to me is one of the big things that I think ALC has almost always had is a migration path. Like you had previously mentioned a U card goes south, load the emu driver for the newest version of hardware out and drop it right in place of the old u card. You don't have to change the program-it's virtually seamless. UNI (half-router) craps out, the soon to be driver for the AMR (yet another router) can be put in place of the failed UNI.

The newest drivers for the LGR's (Router) now do not count 3rd party BACnet points as integration points. BIG, BIG step in the right direction. So if you want to start adding other devices that are not ALC to a LGR...let 'er rip because there is NO limitation now.

Also, there is the new frakin driver for the LGR. Since LGE's are being phased out and for those sites that are still "Legacy" sites there is now a migration path for those situations also. You put a LGR in place of a failed LGE and not only does it communicate legacy communication but you can run MS/TP, ARCnet and legacy out of one router. Does JCI or anyone else do anything like that? (BESIDES USING A JACE!)

We have a very large school district and they still have at some schools exec.3 stuff which is very old. Ever heard of a P20 module? Still running, oh and works with the newest version of WebCTRL software.

I guess all in all the site does not know there are options as devices start to fail and to me would be throwing money away to just rip it out and replace it. I understand that to you, your option is the way to go...but at what cost?

[kontrolphreak]

The newest drivers for the LGR's (Router) now do not count 3rd party BACnet points as integration points. BIG, BIG step in the right direction. So if you want to start adding other devices that are not ALC to a LGR...let 'er rip because there is NO limitation now.

X, this is great news! There were two things that would stop me from recommending ALC as my first choice as a BACnet integration front end and it appears they have fixed one of them!

kontrol out

[xarralu]

X, this is great news! There were two things that would stop me from recommending ALC as my first choice as a BACnet integration front end and it appears they have fixed one of them!

kontrol out

Yes, it is great news. We couldn't believe it either! To take it a step further, the newest drivers also work for ALL OF THE MODULES. So, take a SE 6104a and set it on a non-ALC network. Bring in BACnet points directly to the module. No more expressions.

Think about it...you now have a fully programmable controller that is BACnet in and out (BACnet PID's, points ect.), can ride on anyones MS/TP network, you can have a display connected to it (BACview6) and keep the program and the graphic in the module, so you don't have to worry about not having the program for it anymore. You don't have to have a OWS connected to it either. You can walk right up to it and plug into it and use the Field Assistant software tool.

BTW, what is the other thing you don't like about ALC for intergration?

[kontrolphreak]

That was my second *****! Game changer. Probably forced on them by their dealer network.


kontrol out

[xarralu]

Since everyone wants proof. I have connected an ALC ZN 551 directly to a JCI-NAE via MS/TP by (oh my gosh!) moving a jumper to MS/TP on the ZN. It's running at 38.4 and was able to discover it in the NAE.

It's been a long time coming, but they finally did it. To see an ALC module talking directly to a NAE via MS/TP is...awesome

[MrHVA]

G'Day,

sorry has nothing to do with the topic BUT.......

AUSSIE! AUSSIE! AUSSIE!

[AtticusFinch]

My only complaint is that the customer and other control companies are locked out of the logic programming.
Now... I'll take some heat for this... Most control companies protect their interest in their customers by NOT letting others do any programming at all. They protect their logic.

Greetings blabath. In regards to logic if I have taken years to refine my processes for control why is it you are entitled to something for which you did not pay for receiving? Shall you pay me a royalty for use? I have chosen not to be open source.

If I have sold this to the owner then I release the logic process to them. I would then have a higher price for this. Usually, an owner would not want to pay for this engineering. This is similar to buying a smartphone. You buy the phone, you can use it. But, you do not get the internal programming for this phone.

Yet, I would expect product software and configuration tools left to the owner to be available for use by others. And, if a system is properly conceived avoiding proprietary product and protocol then there is a way for reasonable product migration. My mantra is to avoid systems that are incapable of flat routing of protocol. When this is accomplished there is always a way to freedom, absent territorial restrictions, fees and licensing concerns of a previous installation.

[Chris_Worthington]

G'Day,

sorry has nothing to do with the topic BUT.......

AUSSIE! AUSSIE! AUSSIE!

????

[MrHVA]

????

Couldn't find a button to PM kontrolphreak so, I posted on here. I believe he's an Aussie yeah? If I'm mistaken then PTI.

[crab master]

As a regular member I don't believe you can PM - click on KP's username and then click on the about me tab - you'll see his email there.

[kontrolphreak]

Yeah. Just saw the result. First game I every went to was NZ v Aus in 88 and we drew them then too! First time in like for ever that they hadn't beat us. Charged the field at the end as a grade 10 schoolboy and said hey to the Aussies!
When I saw your post I hadn't seen the result and was hoping beyond hope for the win, but I'll take the draw.

kontrol out

[kontrolphreak]

Have the finally made the stpt microblock BACnet?

kontrol out

[kontrolphreak]

Since everyone wants proof. I have connected an ALC ZN 551 directly to a JCI-NAE via MS/TP by (oh my gosh!) moving a jumper to MS/TP on the ZN. It's running at 38.4 and was able to discover it in the NAE.

It's been a long time coming, but they finally did it. To see an ALC module talking directly to a NAE via MS/TP is...awesome

Welcome to the 21st Century! This is one if not the biggest improvements ALC has made with their controllers since they made them MSTP configurable, no more *****ing about no programs in AMR, no more *****ing that ALC controllers were not third party BACnet peer-to-peer controllers (other then LGR). And with the improvements they have made in their software I would say they are the leaders of the pack in the BACnet world.

kontrol out

[xarralu]

No. I haven't heard anything about it coming down the pipeline yet

[dracula]

Xarralu,

Are the new ALC module drivers packaged with WC5.2 or 5.5 or 5.6?

Have you tried using them with WC3.0 or WC4.1spB systems?

I still have clients with older systems that don't have the funds to upgrade yet due to
the tight economy, and are trying to keep there controls going until they can afford
to start upgrading.

I noticed mention of a P10 module, what about the old 88h drivers?

I wonder if the newer BACnet control specs hitting the street that exclude any BACnet product line that
"locks" out BACnet points, and controllers, from being accessed by the owner or "owner's selected
representative" are starting to have an impact at the manufacturers "C-Level" decision makers.

ALC has made a very smart strategic move with these changes.

[control$]

The old S,M,UNI,LGR,LGE all support MS/TP. The exec 4 Devices do not, but hell bacnet wasn't invented at that time.

[jrevans]

Good to hear about the ALC equipment being truly BACnet MS/TP compatible now (with the proper drivers loaded). That is a very positive development in my opinion.