I/O count for programmables

[sysint]

Whose controllers do you like to use for their I/O count? Seems like everyone offers things all over the map. What do you run out of first for I/O?

XL50? XL800? Distech's? TIA.

[eparizher]

If not too many I/O, I like ACT: very easy to work with.

[cal-cu]

PXCMs---500 point count with expansion

[ctrlguy]

I use a lot of Distech ECP400s - 12 UI, 12UO along with their ECP203 which is very inexpensive with 6 UI, 5 DO and 3 AO. Their DIO products are also very reasonable. XL50s are expensive and only offer 40 or so NVs and no plug-in.

I personally don't like to have too much processing power in one place utilizing DIO, so while a LINX may have 1000 NVs, do I really want to put an entire building's control logic in that one box? I've done it - with Honeywell XL Smart - and it worked fine, but I prefer distributed processing.

Not to hijack this thread, but I've been curious about the LINX and wondered where the L-Web application came into it. I take it that the LINX is less a web server and more of an OPC server and L-Web pulls the OPC data out and allows it to be displayed in a browser of some kind. Am I on the right track? What's the licensing on L-Web?

[381engineer]

What's the licensing on L-Web?

No licensing needed.

[crab master]

Originally Posted by ctrlguy

I personally don't like to have too much processing power in one place utilizing DIO, so while a LINX may have 1000 NVs, do I really want to put an entire building's control logic in that one box? I've done it - and it worked fine, but I prefer distributed processing.

Second that. I wish they made a less expensive version of the L-Proxy. Say a device that can handle 50-100 address tables for all of one/two ahu(s) vavs. I don't want to have a supervisory type controller on my network unless it is supervising something like the AHU's VAV's that it actually runs.

I like the TAC Xenta 300 series.
Mainly I use the 301 - 6 DO, 2 AO, 4 DI, 4 UI, 4 TI.
and 302 sometimes with 4 DO, 4 AO, 4 DI, 4 UI, 4 TI.

Either way I can add up to two I/O modules to this controller to get at the point count I need. The other option is the 401/700 series with 10-20 I/O modules under that. There is quite a range of I/O modules, but again I stay away from that kind of setup overall so the dependancy upon one controller lessens - ie your master controller that runs all the I/O modules goes down all your I/O modules are down.

However, a better count in my mind would be simply 12 UO and 16 UI with expansion modules available.

[osiyo]

Originally Posted by crab master

However, a better count in my mind would be simply 12 UO and 16 UI with expansion modules available.

Yep, something like that.

With TAC systems, like yourself, we use a lot of 301, etc series. Occassionally 401 series.

With AAM systems, a lot of 8-12 UI input, 4 to 8 AO, and 4 to 8 DO devices. Their newer controllers, the GPC series fit into this onboard IO count plus have expansion capabilities.

We try to segregate things. Yes, all the points are on the network. But we want to minimize the overall system effects of a single controller going down, or the network getting blitzed by whatever cause.

Our customers like that approach also.

[sysint]

Originally Posted by ctrlguy

I use a lot of Distech ECP400s - 12 UI, 12UO along with their ECP203 which is very inexpensive with 6 UI, 5 DO and 3 AO. Their DIO products are also very reasonable. XL50s are expensive and only offer 40 or so NVs and no plug-in.

I personally don't like to have too much processing power in one place utilizing DIO, so while a LINX may have 1000 NVs, do I really want to put an entire building's control logic in that one box? I've done it - with Honeywell XL Smart - and it worked fine, but I prefer distributed processing...

That XL50 only exposes 40 variables. I like those. Very solid. I'm sure that Distech exposes more variables but, really aren't there variables essentially not exposed as SNVT's? Well, add that up and think about the ability to expose those. The LINX110 programmable was initially targeted at floor control, particularly the Asian market although very popular in Europe (see Sysmik). At the AHR show we had a LINX110 running "room control". Basically running 6 room control sequences for HVAC, Lights, Blinds, etc.. All that gets tied into the I/O per floor. Since the 110 is also a server full AST is in the box as well so AST is fairly distributed because typical requirements call for AST per floor outside the US. So, you can't have a central location completely responsible for AST.

I would think in many instances like pumping control, tower control, boiler sets, ERV's that you run out of points on a controller like a Distech quickly with the I/O. So you distribute the functions across multiple devices which at times can be a negative. Further, you may have some global type operation for something like total VSD system control and you can take the functions of taking data from many controllers and doing some more advanced calcs in a controller to run central plants. So, you could do something like Trane does with chiller plant control but spit it all out in LON variables if you wanted...

[sysint]

Originally Posted by ctrlguy

...Not to hijack this thread, but I've been curious about the LINX and wondered where the L-Web application came into it. I take it that the LINX is less a web server and more of an OPC server and L-Web pulls the OPC data out and allows it to be displayed in a browser of some kind. Am I on the right track? What's the licensing on L-Web?

LINX are automation servers. They take the native protocol and it's available for interaction and also it is an OPC server. So, I guess it's both. (probably this takes a couple conversations to understand)

We have various versions but if we talk LON we have both the standard and programmable servers with either RNI or IP852 routing. LWeb is a free .NET application. Basically it is a dedicated browser. We didn't want to worry about somebody else's updates affecting our system like JAVA updates, different browser plugins, etc... Also, security issue play into this.

Anyway, the model is extremely distributed. You can have multiple projects stored in multiple locations referencing different things. For instance, lets say I have 4 buildings. I can have a global project (located somewhere) that is what we consider typical BAS display. I may also have 4 projects in each buildings LINX that are designed for smart phone. Then I may have another project available that just allows for schedule or energy data and control. Further, I may have a NOC at the office that accesses hundreds of servers across multiple sites to provide various services a company would offer customers. By using this model any LWeb app running a project accesses data from all servers directly. There is no need to tunnel this information to a supervisory server. This makes the data transfer quick.

Further, the LWeb allows us to create a graphical tool that you can use that doesn't require you to do JAVA, JS, HTML, etc... to make pages. Which allows Loytec to provide all the tools free of charge. No licensing or expired licensing if you don't send in a yearly PO. Buy a box, it does what it does and the config tools are free. Very straightforward. However, should you want your own front end bacnet side's open, LON side's open, and each is also a OPC server so select a SCADA or system you like to pay for.

Loytec has thought this out very well and took out a data moving roadblock many others have.

[NINAX]

Originally Posted by sysint

So you distribute the functions across multiple devices which at times can be a negative.

Excuse my ignorance.
What would the difference be between distributing functions and distributing the IO? They're both dependent on the comm, aren't they?

[sysint]

Originally Posted by crab master

However, a better count in my mind would be simply 12 UO and 16 UI with expansion modules available.

Yes. this seems nice. BTW, LINX servers are much less than LProxy so there's your answer for that.

[sysint]

Originally Posted by NINAX

Excuse my ignorance.
What would the difference be between distributing functions and distributing the IO? They're both dependent on the comm, aren't they?

Hardly ignorant.. Let me revisit the logic in the floor control I have to be more detailed on exactly what they do but I can see where if you are running an ERV you would like to pack the logic in a single controller. Or, even something like a modular chiller bank.

On the floor control, I think it's more bang for the buck to have full AST and visualization along with a distributed management architecture by floor. I see two methods in use for this. One is something like our LINX110 with no physical I/O and the other method is like what Sysmik does with a server with attached I/O (as needed) Sysmik uses Phoenix contact I/O and you buy what's necessary and the Sysmik guy says they wire everything back to the central floor location. Think about this... no VAV controllers. They would wire the damper and flow directly back to the controller. (not saying good or bad but this is what they do)

Why does the JACE have 64 I/O capacity? What are people using that for?

EDIT: I'm drilling into a room control program. They have the following:
HVAC Mode Decoder - Used for evaluating what mode and occ the HVAC is in
Window Contact Monitor -
Setpoint Mux/DeMux
Room Temp monitor
Heating/Cooling control
Lighting control
Intrusion detection
Sunblinds

Then they are running 7 of these programs in a LINX110

EDIT: I think it has much to do also with the thought of the rest of the world works off of a space concept. Here we work per node. Maybe this is because the node concentration per square foot outside the US is greater. Who here does complete space control? I think if you had to bind in the variables for the blinds with the lumen detector and also the window contacts and HVAC (per area) I think maybe you can see where this method has some advantages.

[sysint]

Here's an example of what's inside (starting at level 2 and drilling to level 3)

RoomControl.jpg
RoomControl2.jpg