Is there anyone who has extensive experience with these controllers? I was always curious to know how many controllers can be handled by each version of the FX Supervisory Controllers....although I'm sure the capacities are not based on controller count but more so on type of written programs as well as FX alarms, trends, etc. A majority of the field controllers will be controlling CW/HW/VFD-controlled AHUs and VAVs. One of the FX Supervisory Controllers will also be integrating to an existing Trane Summit System via BACnet IP (Chiller Plant, AHUs and VAVs) and possibly future Honeywell Spider Field Controllers via Lontalk.
Is there anyone who has extensive experience with these controllers? I was always curious to know how many controllers can be handled by each version of the FX Supervisory Controllers....although I'm sure the capacities are not based on controller count but more so on type of written programs as well as FX alarms, trends, etc. A majority of the field controllers will be controlling CW/HW/VFD-controlled AHUs and VAVs. One of the FX Supervisory Controllers will also be integrating to an existing Trane Summit System via BACnet IP (Chiller Plant, AHUs and VAVs) and possibly future Honeywell Spider Field Controllers via Lontalk.
Thanks.
By the way, the Johnson Field Controllers coming off of the FX Supervisory Controllers will be FEC BACnet Controllers.
Some busses allow a fixed max. number of devices. With a Jace tho you can add a second or third network and increase the device count that way, or adding a router to your network may allow an increased count on a bus. I don't think I've ever seen or heard of an "absolute" number of controllers that a Jace could handle. You've mentioned some of the features that could add to that limit though,
i.e., "written programs as well as FX alarms, trends, etc."
This is a real job. The FECs will be controlling AHUs, VAVs and Hot Water System equipment and will communicate to the FX Supervisory Controllers via BACnet MS/TP.
I'm figuring it will be best to use FX Supervisory Controllers vs Johnson NAEs because I feel the future integration to existing 3rd party Honeywell LON Controllers will be much smoother using FX20/60/70 Controllers.
The FX will easily communicate to as many FEC as an NAE. What sort of unit load do FECs present on a MSTP bus? Same constraints for FX.
we have FX60 that concurrently interfaces 5 different RS485 bus including modbus and Bacnet, SNMP, consumes RS232 strings from the fire system, and serves graphics for the site....and it still has capacity.
How many devices do you need to communicate with
1 + 1 = 3 ( *** for very large values of 1)
...everybody wants a box of chocolates and long stemmed rose
The FX will easily communicate to as many FEC as an NAE. What sort of unit load do FECs present on a MSTP bus? Same constraints for FX.
we have FX60 that concurrently interfaces 5 different RS485 bus including modbus and Bacnet, SNMP, consumes RS232 strings from the fire system, and serves graphics for the site....and it still has capacity.
How many devices do you need to communicate with
We are an ABCS but currently have access to both FX & Metasys Lines. I'm looking at around 450-500 FEC field controllers (400 of which are FEC VMA VAV Controllers and the others for AHUs and Hot Water System equipment control). I'm thinking 2 or 3 FX Supervisory Controllers would be needed....not sure if to go FX60 or FX70s.
NightrainATC,
Put some info in your profile please.
While you're at it apply from pro membership. I know I would be more willing to assist in the pro forum.
If sense were so common everyone would have it !
All opinions expressed are my own. Any advice provided is based on personal experience, generally accepted fact or publicly available information. As such, it is worth exactly what you paid for it, not a penny more not a penny less !!
I've got a site with 3200 points on a single FX60. The N2 bus is split in halve, on two different physical ports. I have the server software package doing the graphics and trending. The FX60 is maxed out. I have similar sites with 2300-2400 points and everything runs at a much lower level. So, the consumption is defiantly not linear.
I've got a site with 3200 points on a single FX60. The N2 bus is split in halve, on two different physical ports. I have the server software package doing the graphics and trending. The FX60 is maxed out. I have similar sites with 2300-2400 points and everything runs at a much lower level. So, the consumption is defiantly not linear.
Mechdorn,
Thanks. This is the type of information I was looking for. I too will be implementing a FX Server so is it safe to use 1600 pts per trunk as a max guidline?
At this time, we are used to using NAEs which have controller count limitations. Because this is a big facility which may require 4 to 5 FX Supervisory Controllers, I'm assuming we will use the RS-485 adapter for each FX Supervisory and run (2) BACnet MS/TP trunks per FX with repeaters as needed.....is this correct?
Lastly, I will be bringing in existing Trane pts from (2) BCUs...approx a total of 600-800 pts...over BACnet IP into the FX Server. Also future Lontalk integration to approx (15) Honeywell Spider field controllers which would require a FX LON card.
Johnson FX20/60/70 Capacities + Integration
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by NightrainATC
