Charming. A name stealing one-timer.Originally posted by sysint2
There appears to be a misconception about LON and BACnet.....
BACnet is a top down design. XML/SOAP and TCP/IP is taking over the top. Kiss any advantage over LON goodbye.
LON is a device level protocol. It completely kicks tail over the arcane methods you BACnetter's employ. One network tool. Again, one network tool. It works so good you can even run BACnet over it. Also, because BACnet isn't a full 7 layer protocol to begin with. LON is extremely scaleable. In a practical sense it's why you don't see GC's all over a LON network getting in the way.
LON is getting you bottom up and the Internet standards are squeezing you top down. You BACnetter's are running out of room.
EDIT... THE HVAC big 3.... Give me a break. Typical engineering response. How about this instead:
Single Network Tool (interoperability)
With this you now have the ability to do your little 3, which is really the afterthought after the practical application. BTW, LON does that... BACnet doesn't.
Alarming/Trending/Scheduling - Personally, oBIX will take care of this nicely I'm thinking. However, I think LON scheduling methods are superior being device level. Trending is really a non-issue IMO. Alarming, more standards would be nice in the LON world, however I personally take Circon alarms to IP and the customer sees and acts on understandable verbage onscreen or via email so really again these items are all small points in the scheme of things. Cart before horse stuff.
This is an outright lie. You are a liar..... or dealing with some really backwards integrators. That is actually the BACnet story and has been. Networking LON devices is about as simple as it gets.Originally posted by sysint2 (poser) The biggest concern that LON system integrators have voiced is the networking of LON devices upon a twisted pair network (subnet). Many difficulties are getting the devices talking at this level....
[Edited by sysint on 04-13-2005 at 07:21 AM]