Tridium and Trane HELP

[sysint]

Scrooloose-- Thanks for the information on the software update with Rover.

[qtip]

You can do all your bindings with rover and then have the Jace learn the link but you would probably be better off doing the binding with the Jace in the first place. Sounds like on this project there is a two part deal with you doing the controls and some one else doing the front end. Is that the case? I work for the Devil (Trane franchise office) and I would be reluctant to do any binding on a job such as this with Rover for the simple fact the if something does happen there is no quik way to restore the data base.

I totally agree with this, it should be the responsibility of the integrator for all of the bindings.

As scrooloose stated after the Jace has commissioned the link go jump on the link and reset the DSN B to a ZL domain and you will be able to run Rover as needed. This is very common when doing any type of work like this.

You stated "Rover has the crap scared out of me since it does not even play well with the BCU". Not sure how you come up with this....seems to work fine for me.

Yea. Those specifying engineers are always completely thought out and never make mistakes....

Sounds like this one is a real charm

The other way around this is to do the whole job yourself under one contract, this would probably be better for the customer in the long run.

[freddy-b]

What I don't mince words with is what something is. And Tridium is essentially a proprietary Niagara Framework over "open" protocols, although they seem to do it better than most. That is what it is.

The way I see it..You are technically correct with this statement. But as you put it in other threads that "Legacy systems are finite" and Tridium is a "thumb in the damn solution" or something to that effect. Right now with integrations this makes sense to most owners who fit in that umbrella. By the time this legacy equipment is totally vanished...chances are we will be well beyond the current "Pure" solutions, and on to the next and best greatest thing...whatever that may be...

[dave2142]

Not sure if everyone understands what I am saying. Forget all the contract crap that is the reason for all these problems in the first place. We can argue contracts all day long but when the equipment does not work the owner could care less who is to blame. All I want is for this to go as smooth as possible for all. This project is one of a large school system where the integrator is flat spec and all the schools are out to low bid for (OPEN PROTOCOL LON). Some have JCI some Trane and some Honeywell. The contract call for the school contract to own the bindings and the integrator the front end so to speak. I know of several other contractors who spent months arguing over this binding concept because once the integrator connected up it blew them all out and equipment stopped working. The integration is done at end of project. Their is no commissioning agent so I can argue all I want that the equipment worked before integration but the proof is in the pudding so to speak. Not to mention I have only been given 24 hours of time to work with integrator. So can someone tell me with experience if I should use Rover or another options so I just give the integrator and xml or pdf with bindings and when he goes online everything I had working still works.

[dave2142]

This is my big ***** open should mean open. I mean isn't that what the customer wants.

[dave2142]

Originally Posted by willf650 View Post
You can do all your bindings with rover and then have the Jace learn the link but you would probably be better off doing the binding with the Jace in the first place. Sounds like on this project there is a two part deal with you doing the controls and some one else doing the front end. Is that the case? I work for the Devil (Trane franchise office) and I would be reluctant to do any binding on a job such as this with Rover for the simple fact the if something does happen there is no quik way to restore the data base.

The bindings are part of the controls so I need them to test and complete my controls.

[scrooloose]

What he is saying is that Rover does not save a database where you can backup or restore bindings. So if you make 1000 bindings and the integrator goes and blows them out you are making those 1000 by hand over again.

So if it is the contractors responsibility to make them then they will be done with rover, but that will be the downfall if the integrator wipes them.

Am i understanding the question correctly?

[dave2142]

Scrooloose you are correct. It will be my job to make the bindings and the equipment work. I know what some are saying and that is tough crap owner when the controls no longer work once integrator gets on. I do not want to go down that road since we actually want to do more work here. I have some backing on our end not to use Rover if I can justify a better way to do it. Afterall the name even tells you the truth Service Tool not controls setup tool.

[dave2142]

What I meant by Rover scaring me is that everyone depends on the BCU with Trane systems for bindings and if you build them on the trunk with Rover and someone screws up even the BCU blows them away. My understanding is that the main concept behind Lon is that everything talks back and forth over the trunk thus eliminating the need for a front end if desired. If that is the case then the concept of using the BCU or Tridium or any front end for the bindings is wrong.

[NINAX]

Low.

That was not the intent.

[sysint]

...My understanding is that the main concept behind Lon is that everything talks back and forth over the trunk thus eliminating the need for a front end if desired. If that is the case then the concept of using the BCU or Tridium or any front end for the bindings is wrong.

I would not call the other methods wrong, but they are different. It's wrong if your outcome is a database that can be shared and simultaneously worked on with multiple vendors software for setup/operations without conflicts.

Even the older LON vendors had their own API's. What basically it meant was any other vendors products integrated were "third party" and you had no plugins for them. (almost bacnet style, but more reliable comm) Then, along came LNS and now vendors could not only integrate but open other vendors plugins to configure devices. Since this DB could be shared, bindings are recorded in the shared software platform and there is no issues.

Maybe Tridium can give you a shared platform that your company can utilize... however, something tells me they would rather sell their boxes instead. I'm not going to fault them for that, it is what they are and what they do.

[summit-dude]

Dave,

A Niagra box uses the Lon differently than the BCU. The Niagra or Tridium box polls data from the DSN's so it is active on the Lon unlike the BCU that relys on heartbeating to receive its data. Configure your link and any custom bindings just make note of this for your integration guy. get used to this you will need to learn LNS for the newest Trane lineup.

[dave2142]

I am familiar with LNS as that is the software I used in the past. Not familiar with Trane and Rover and I work for Trane now so have to learn new way of doing things.