Page 2 of 10 FirstFirst 123456789 ... LastLast
Results 14 to 26 of 120
  1. #14
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,481
    Http, Sedona, ModbusTCP, ModbusRTU, BacnetIP ...yes concurrently....I dont think its stated anywhere....maybe I'm talking braille but I dont think so...I have done it in practice.

    The EasyIO will talk to Modbus RTU on one side, say to multiple power meters, and translate to ModbusTCP on the other side...or BacnetIP...or Both!

    Why use sedona??
    ... lightweight embedded
    ...drag and drop in Tridium Workbench.
    ...write a new code block inside WorkBench like this...

    ~~~~~~

    @niagaraIcon="module://icons/x16/control/booleanPoint.png"
    class Summ
    extends Component
    {
    ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
    // Properties
    ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

    @config @summary property float InA
    @config @summary property float InB
    @config @summary property float InC
    @config @summary property float InD
    @config @summary property float InE @readonly @summary property float Out

    ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
    // Override Methods
    ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
    virtual override void execute()
    {
    Out = InA + InB + InC + InD + InD
    }

    }


    ....press F9 and its compiled.
    ...freely distribute to other sedona devices at will.
    1 + 1 = 3 ( *** for very large values of 1)

    ...everybody wants a box of chocolates and long stemmed rose

  2. #15
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    9,564
    Quote Originally Posted by MatrixTransform View Post
    Http, Sedona, ModbusTCP, ModbusRTU, BacnetIP ...yes concurrently....I dont think its stated anywhere....maybe I'm talking braille but I dont think so...I have done it in practice.
    The EasyIO will talk to Modbus RTU on one side, say to multiple power meters, and translate to ModbusTCP on the other side...or BacnetIP...or Both!

    Why use sedona??
    ... lightweight embedded, drag and drop in Tridium Workbench.
    ...write a new code block inside WorkBench like this...
    Well. Finally seems somebody is starting to catch up. I guess I need to be more careful now that somebody else can practically communicate a few protocols simultaneously in a device.

    How many points per controller?

    Can you do all that with LON, DALI, KNX and Mbus too or is it limited to BACnet/IP, Modbus and Sedona? And, don't I need to buy a specific chip to use Sedona? What's the Jennic chipset used for? The BACnet guys didn't like LON because they needed a specific set of hardware. Why is this better for them? Is Sedona a published standard? Are they applying for ANSI, IEC or ISO status?

  3. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Baton Rouge, LA
    Posts
    1,114
    I have no experience with EasyIO.

    Have you looked into Delta? They are suppose to be a good BACnet replacement system that will integrate easily.

    http://www.deltacontrols.com/solutio...lers/dznt-xxxx

  4. #17
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    9,564
    XcelTech- Don't you see the trend? People now want their field devices speaking multiple languages and do not want to be restricted anymore.

    You see, when you get multiple languages at device level you no longer need proprietary frameworks. Standards are there for a reason. Thinking about this with Sedona of course this is a great play by Tridium. They make Sedona roll into the framework easier so if you use Tridium likely you use it. Otherwise you would use something else buy anyway product still sells.

    The next phase of this is what is happening with OPC. Here with OPC you can build an open framework instead of using a proprietary framework. I've even seen IEC61131 programs (for fully programmable controllers) dumped into multiple PLC's. Essentially the communication issues disappear and people can get back to engineering.

  5. #18
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Baton Rouge, LA
    Posts
    1,114
    That is all fine and dandy and I don't disagree. However, if Sedona is still flaky and still in the realm of smoothing out the edges, Paragk might not want to put the time and effort into using a young new system. I am sure his customer doesn't want to wait for Sedona to mature or take weeks to fix the bugs after each new component is installed.

    Like I said earlier I have no personal experience with Sedona or EasyIO and was merely suggesting another option.

    On a personal note, I don't like Proprietary frameworks either. I was informed the new Delta plug and plays allowed for non-Delta equipment to be easily attached and implemented. Which sounds a lot like what you were saying,
    Thinking about this with Sedona of course this is a great play by Tridium. They make Sedona roll into the framework easier so if you use Tridium likely you use it.

  6. #19
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    9,564
    Quote Originally Posted by XcelTech View Post
    ...I was informed the new Delta plug and plays allowed for non-Delta equipment to be easily attached and implemented. Which sounds a lot like what you were saying,
    Will Delta subsequently be offering their configuration tools or is this a one-way street in?

    There are things to consider. Open interface, freely available configuration tools, and networking tools.

    Usually a vendor offers to take everything in. Big deal. If you bring everything into a proprietary framework how does that help the owner? Doesn't. So, when I see these boxes that propagate the proprietary communication protocols with allowance to bring in open protocols they have essentially killed the open part. I wouldn't use them.

    The next part to this is how is the interface? I'd look for open communication interface. No proprietary frameworks or tunnels.

    And, finally how about the configuration tools? I prefer FREE. So, if I buy a piece of hardware I should get the tools for it. However, I see often if you are a software-only provider and need to outsource your controllers and I/O manufacturing to Taiwan I see why you would design a proprietary framework and charge for software with mechanisms to make yearly sign up fees and charge for upgrades because you have no way to make money on hardware as you do not manufacture actual physical product.

    Anyway, I find Sedona somewhat interesting if it gets standardized and doesn't require specific "chips".

  7. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by sysint View Post
    Anyway, I find Sedona somewhat interesting if it gets standardized and doesn't require specific "chips".
    Thats a Bacnetish quote. From now on you will be known as Bacnetguy (the next generation)

  8. #21
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Pacific Time Zone
    Posts
    4,223
    I haven't. Looks pretty cool though. Sedona, Bacnet and Modbus looks like their only comms briefing the documentation. The drag and drop workbench is huge
    Is it really that special to have multiple protocols communicating concurrently in one device? I've been doing LON, Modbus RTU, Bacnet IP and proprietary communication out of the same device for awhile. Most are doing 3 or less protocols, but there are a few doing 4. Maybe I've just been lucky, or my ignorance in mainly dealing with one manufacturer, but I never thought of it being that special. I recall talking to one guy who simply never thought of trying multiple protocols out of one device, he was always buying another device, didn't mind telling him about it, don't have stock in that company!
    "How it can be considered "Open" is beyond me. Calling it "voyeur-ed" would be more accurate." pka LeroyMac, SkyIsBlue, fka Freddy-B, Mongo, IndyBlue
    BIG Government = More Dependents
    "Any 'standard' would be great if it didn't get bastardised by corporate self interest." MatrixTransform
    http://threedevilskennel.com/ - not my website.
    Versatile Hunting Dog Federation - www.vhdf.org/


  9. #22
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    9,564
    Quote Originally Posted by freddy-b View Post
    Thats a Bacnetish quote. From now on you will be known as Bacnetguy (the next generation)
    I just like to see what sticks to the wall. Go ahead with that.... sooner or later somebody will be here trying to back their h-word stance on the matter. I'm trying to be good here Freddy...

    EDIT: Loytec is a bacnet company. Didn't you know that?

  10. #23
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    9,564
    Quote Originally Posted by crab master View Post
    Is it really that special to have multiple protocols communicating concurrently in one device?
    It gets very special when the point count goes up in the device... and quite frankly when you can communicate something like LON and BACnet since the variable structure is dramatically different.

    Putting LON and BACnet into a fieldbus simultaneously separates men from boys. So, now you have a very easy way to separate front ends from devices and provide flatter architectures. You can use significantly more robust LON fieldbus and send out BACnet/IP or OPC at multiple levels.

    So, this type of thing is special if you don't dump it into a proprietary framework.

    What I don't understand is the appeal for Modbus. In many ways I find Modbus mostly useless. What redeeming qualities does Modbus have to other technologies? I'd rather use BACnet MSTP any day over Modbus. Modbus has almost zero standards for anything. So, you can see where I set the bar on that.

  11. #24
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,459
    Quote Originally Posted by sysint View Post

    What I don't understand is the appeal for Modbus. In many ways I find Modbus mostly useless. What redeeming qualities does Modbus have to other technologies? I'd rather use BACnet MSTP any day over Modbus. Modbus has almost zero standards for anything. So, you can see where I set the bar on that.
    I think the reason Modbus has traditionally had a larger market share than BACnet or LON is precisely because of its simplicity.

    Anyone can create a Modbus driver from scratch given a couple of weeks. The Modbus protocol document is only 51 pages long in its entirety.

  12. #25
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,481
    ...I forgot to mention...

    ...if you want easyIO to make a bacnet variable then simply go to the config page with a web browser and tick each box

    The top level of an EasyIO network is typically Tridium AX. So for OPC, LON, SNMP, SMTP, SMS ... (and many other acronyms) ... concurrent communication in multiple protocols is EASY.

    ...love the comments from BacNet fairies on this forum.

    ...You know, the other day I tried to replace a Danfoss bacnet drive with an Eaton bacnet VSD into an Alerton bacnet system.
    ...first, connecting the drive crashed the whole network, next the Eaton would not comm fast enough, then I cant find out from anybody how to change the baud in an Alerton job (i guess bacnet is proprietary sometimes HEH?) ... so ended up wiring the thing to an analog output.

    ...so much for bacnet saving the world ... not open at all, and all the major vendors are the same. They wave the bacnet word to clients like its a magic wand....and then behave in a completely closed manner.

    So yeah, we system integrators...AND the customers we deal with... dont want to be locked in any more.

    In fact we will go to extraordinary lengths to make sure we arent.

    Too late...the genie is out of the bottle.
    1 + 1 = 3 ( *** for very large values of 1)

    ...everybody wants a box of chocolates and long stemmed rose

  13. #26
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    9,564
    Quote Originally Posted by MatrixTransform View Post
    ...The top level of an EasyIO network is typically Tridium AX. So for OPC, LON, SNMP, SMTP, SMS ... (and many other acronyms) ... concurrent communication in multiple protocols is EASY....love the comments from BacNet fairies on this forum.
    So yeah, we system integrators...AND the customers we deal with... dont want to be locked in any more.
    In fact we will go to extraordinary lengths to make sure we arent. Too late...the genie is out of the bottle.
    So, you need to put this Sedona into your proprietary Tridium Box with licensing, upgrade and software costs. At that point you convert.... Expensive. And concurrent communication in multiple protocols -specifically LON and BACnet... not "so easy". I think if you actually analyzed your performance you would be in for a surprise.

    Seems to me you are extremely locked in to a specific manufacturer. I use manufacturer very loosely because what do they actually manufacture?

    What happens in the near future when the other big vendors dump support? Then it's just the Honeywell group. What if you are on the outs? What do you do?

Page 2 of 10 FirstFirst 123456789 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Comfortech Show Promo Image

Related Forums

Plumbing Talks | Contractor Magazine
Forums | Electrical Construction & Maintenance (EC&M) Magazine
Comfortech365 Virtual Event