My ILON mobile won't commission because I ran out of LNS credits .
Originally Posted by freddy-b
All I'm getting at is if someone is going to make a claim that a product is "freedom" is explain yourself and remember the guy we're trying to help doesn't have a lot experience outside of his Siemens system. I'm all for havng a system you are comfortable with, proprietary or open, as long as it does what you want. Frankenstien systems suck as well and if someone is saying just add a Tridium bolt to old Frank and he'll be free, well, he is still Frankenstien.
Last edited by davetec; 02-20-2008 at 02:50 PM.
You lost your dongle!
Nice post. Everything is relative. I guess I'm jaded after all these years so I lean toward a protocol that can allow for individual part replacement(s) among multiple vendors, including front ends. I will say Tridium helps in this regard but with new servers everyday that can handle Lonworks I like not having a locked down front end too. So, Tridium w/Lonworks devices isn't a bad compromise but you are still free on devices. Why you would want to mix bacnet devices is beyond me. especially when you are talking future ASC type devices. Since the user has the Siemens I'd probably make the ESCO provide manufacturers products that they want. I'm sure the ESCO would work with them IF they want the project. Also, there is no reason for for Kool to compromise and have them try to do a "hand washing" just because he has preferred vendors.
Originally Posted by davetec
Freddy-- I tend to agree that Tridium w/Lonworks devices would be a better choice for the future than Siemens IF he has a planned replacement schedule. He will be able to at least shop for competitive pricing on controllers and installation additions. It's just that he MAY be a little hamstrung with the Tridium front end. However, can't Tridium handle LNS? If so, I'd start it that way. Then he has freedom with his Tridium front end if he doesn't like the service/support in the future. Keeps everyone more honest.
He is still way ahead of bacnet because he can specify control sequences WITH identical variable naming. That way any future controllers can provide the same Lonworks variables with similar programming behind them. So, essentially he is ASC'ing his programmables to his specifications. Takes a little bit of work but worth it.
What IS PROBABLY going to happen here is some ASHRAE bacnet talking will be going on with the OEM squeeze and this customer's boat is already sunk. The engineers, the control manufacturer(s) in bed with the ESCO and the OEM equipment providers would rather go the EASY way and send out some torpedos first to sink the Lonworks rather than put the effort into a really nice package.
EDIT 2: Here's proof again. See it ALL the time on this site: http://www.hvac-talk.com/vbb/showthread.php?t=162854
"...now there's apparently some issues that the customer has with the Andover rep, and they won't come out to deliver what was in the spec. We really need these points - is there any way we can map those without Andover rep getting involved?"--- This is why you go LNS Lonworks.
Last edited by sysint; 02-20-2008 at 03:37 PM.
... I'll make my case further. If the owner has LNS Lonworks and a REP is screwing him over with a programmable he can get rid of the INDIVIDUAL controller. Since it is LNS Vendor 2 can come in and add their replacement device in and give the owner programming software (if required). No SYSTEM-WIDE replacements or issues. He can even have Vendor 2 duplicate the available variable names and types with the spec'd control scheme. The only way to make the scenario better is a LOW cost front end, and there are more and more of those daily. Even if the owner goes Tridium or gates to his Siemens front end he is still better off running LNS Lonworks for future competitive pricing and better opportunities at service.
We all know that wouldn't be the scenario with any bacnet lineup or even with an API Lon system. Easier with the API LON than bacnet, but not as easy as LNS. Further, LNS pays off bigger with future VAV, heat pump, RTU, unit ventilator controllers and simple lighting controls as that's simply cost competitive off the shelf configurable items that you can buy wholesale and retail. Name ANY bacnet controller besides a thermostat you can get without a contract. I can even buy FREELY programmable Lonworks controllers wholesale or RETAIL. Can I get any bacnetter programmables?
Last edited by sysint; 02-20-2008 at 03:54 PM.
I am wondering why you dont think this same logic would not apply to a field Lon Device with a Tridium JACE?
Originally Posted by sysint
System Wide replacement/issues?
Vendor 2 would have to do homework especially with programmables, but why would it be any different with LNS.
Sorry, I am not following you.
Originally Posted by davetec
Depends on how you look at it I guess, but he would look alot better and have a cure within sight.
From what I've heard 'over the street', they should work on the quality of the iLON hardware to reduce the high failure rates.
I guess that's one of the reasons that JCI has added the 'flat LON' capability to the NIE and will probably own those government jobs in the near future.
Essentially it wouldn't be much different except that if you maintained LNS with the Tridium box you could more easily get out of Tridium than not if there was a problem. As (I thought) I stated, either is superior to any Tridium/bacnet or bacnet solution.
Originally Posted by freddy-b
Hardware has not been an ilon issue I'm aware of.
Originally Posted by 2^3
Where did that hardware rumor come from. Must have been an ASHRAE meeting. PSSST.... who makes Johnson's LON hardware?
I honestly dont know with the new revision of AX if a LNS database option is supported yet or not. I have heard there are/were (6 months or so) beta sites up and running. But have not seen or read anything concrete on the matter.
Originally Posted by sysint
Also when the term "Tridium" or "JACE" comes up, on this board. I think that we should add "R2" or "AX" at the end. And we should do the same the other direction.
Just to make sure we are comparing the Apples to Apples. Otherwise its pointless to compare with a generic term such as Tridium., however technically true it may be at some level, with the exact verbage presented. it could become misleading for people.
unbundleing points for LON works
They will interface and you can bring the points into the Siemens database but all points that you want to bring in you have to manually unbundle into the APOGEE front end. Also, the particular LON based systems are different and all have their quirks that you will have to learn. I am sure that having a site with DPU's you understand this. The issue I have had is the alarming of LON points to the Siemens system and how to go about setting those points up, another step in the process.
Originally Posted by koolncali
You may save some money with another control system but the learning curve and the hours spent getting it to what you are familuar with may be more than it's worth.
Well that's a lot to digest. Hey guys I really do appreciate all the input and wisdom from each one of you. Tommorrow morning we're having a meeting with Ameresco so they can update us on central plant progress (and tell us some more lies). Since I only know Siemens it would be really easy to fool me and my supervisors since they know less than me about control systems. With Siemens although they won't allow customers to have all of their tools, I still have a great deal of control of . We don't have a maintenance contract with Siemens. From the front end I can program code, edit code, modify code, create points (virtual and physical) trend, make schedules, create graphics and import them into the database, download databases into field panels, and on and on. I can go into the field and plug my laptop in, log in through hyperterminal and do almost anything I can do from the front end. The least friendly Siemens controller to me is the TEC with it's application specific logic control. But even then you have some control of a TEC. Any control system that's mostly application specific and little functionality, little control of programming and editing would not make me happy. Some of you guys are right when you say I may not have much to say once Ameresco gets past the point of nailing us down with the system they want. And yes schools are bad about going cheapest bid but this is strictly an Ameresco project. They're rolling the dice. It looks like they favor the TAC/Invensys system. I'm thinking it's a web-based ethernet protocol communicating over the college intranet (IT network) and maybe using an IT network server (I don't know if that's a good thing). Their specs is calling it a LONWorks open protocol. But researching the links sysint gave me, it looks like most Invensys controllers and devices are BACnet. I'm going to be asking them some questions tommorrow but it looks like I'm in for a rough ride.
Invensys has lon controllers. They are the worst excuse of Lon vendors out there. Might as well consider yourself married to their service dept if you go the invensys route, unless you spec the software (Workplace Tech 5)to be included, they will fight you every inch of the way to not give it to you.