Welcome. They have a long way to go yet, but it's a start

 

What does that mean?

 

It's good others realize when you have an IP controller some things others have been using for years are unnecessary for tomorrow.

 

You locked yourself into a proprietary management system, with continual licensing and field bus. No field bus, no need for that infrastructure and your head end costs are far less. Sort of like how industrial operates.

And nobody states you can't run multiple visualization systems in parallel.

 

No field bus, no need for that infrastructure and your head end costs are far less. Sort of like how industrial operates.

Sorry, can you explain what you mean by this? It could be me, but I really don't know what you mean by that. I don't know how you could not have a "field bus" and control anything. The only thing I can imagine you are talking about is if each controller for everything was it's own "head end". I.E. like installing one JACE for a AHU, giving it a IP address, connecting it to the network, and then if you want to know something about that AHU you have to log into that specific JACE? Is this what you mean by:

And nobody states you can't run multiple visualization systems in parallel.

That might be feasible for a simple system of 1 or 2 floors, but when you have 2 50 acres campuses with 20 buildings each, having to remember the IP address of 100 or more controllers, make daily, weekly and monthly reports for systems, etc etc it is not feasible.

As far as licensing fees there is that, but what company could afford to supply tech support and updates for years and years and years without getting paid for it? Technically, you don't need to pay for any fees with niagara after buying it initally, it won't stop working, you just will not be able to update the software or expand the system with new devices after the SMA runs out. See my other posts about the coninuum systems I am trying to connect to, you can't buy any components or software anymore, so what's the difference?

 

Sorry, can you explain what you mean by this? It could be me, but I really don't know what you mean by that. I don't know how you could not have a "field bus" and control anything. The only thing I can imagine you are talking about is if each controller for everything was it's own "head end". I.E. like installing one JACE for a AHU, giving it a IP address, connecting it to the network, and then if you want to know something about that AHU you have to log into that specific JACE? Is this what you mean by:

That might be feasible for a simple system of 1 or 2 floors, but when you have 2 50 acres campuses with 20 buildings each, having to remember the IP address of 100 or more controllers, make daily, weekly and monthly reports for systems, etc etc it is not feasible.

As far as licensing fees there is that, but what company could afford to supply tech support and updates for years and years and years without getting paid for it? Technically, you don't need to pay for any fees with niagara after buying it initally, it won't stop working, you just will not be able to update the software or expand the system with new devices after the SMA runs out. See my other posts about the coninuum systems I am trying to connect to, you can't buy any components or software anymore, so what's the difference?

Hi, I'm going to qualify this by stating not all sites are the same, but we do get involved with higher requirement gov and datacenter work, in addition to hospitals and similar facilities. I understand the need for things such as reporting and system management functionality, and it is nice to have on top. Imagine that all your graphics are designed at the device level, including things like a phone sized balancer, unit config and even a tile to put on a floor plan. Now, when you have a SCADA, that these graphics aren't made twice, but simply used. That's a great amount of flexibility. Now, add in something like an app that recognizes what room you are in and can reference the graphic on your phone based on your permissions automatically. Do you care where it's sourced, or that you get the data you want? There is nothing about that requiring you to remember any IP addresses. There is no log IN/OUT of various controllers. That's stuff we solved in about 2010.

In regards to licensing, when you make your own hardware, do your own software design, and design your own platform, you can offer free tech support and firmware updates. At least that's what we are still doing.

And, what's the difference using IP controllers or media like Bluetooth mesh? Upgradability and access. Plus, I can add something like a camera or door controller on the network. It's IP. The most common fieldbus our customers use is Modbus to the smart-stat or BACnet to valves, actuators and VOC sensors from an IP controller. Since the IP controller is more robust, our VAV controller has all of ASHRAE 90.1 inside of it. We are also doing VAV system reporting in the controllers. The VAV generates a wiring diagram, points list and sequence of operation with live values. Good for a commissioning agent. That report can be sent from a controller directly to an onsite or offsite database, without using some framework of middleware boxes. Think replacing devices and not entire subsystem silos.

Since Bluetooth mesh arrived and it's very stable, people want that in commercial because you can more easily combine HVAC and lighting. And, these type of architectures also are easier for anyone to put down any SCADA, or simultaneous SCADA or analytics all running in parallel, because nobody is tied to a proprietary framework, that purposely and permanently links middleware boxes to fieldbus devices. Regardless, if you have that, use BACnet routers, and never ever proxy.

 

One could say what is the point of the APEX or SY1000 with a PC running niagara with some bacnet routers, or bacnet IP devices to the niagara station. The SY1000 doesn't stack up in any fashion for integration work. The right guy and the right devices I'm sure you could bring in 40 JCI N2 controllers to a SY1000 but a extremely painful experience that would be. I was at the 2016 distech connect conference in Miami. They constantly spoke about being a committed Tridium partner, and in the next slide here is our SY1000 and our own stuff. A strikingly obvious replace the TBox motive that they tried to sell as not. Now with the Apex a 100 times more powerful than the SY1000 stated by the sales dork that gave us a demo. Yeah what is the point of the JACE? I think Distech mothership loves to hear that. If any Distech dealer thinks the eclypse line limits competition right now your sales guy is knocking on doors looking to sign up 10 more SI's in your area. Flexibility and having product line options is our approach. We sell 4 brands of Tridium .We also do Metasys, and Siemens to repeat the rewards of terrible branch's in our areas. Having an APEX or SY1000 only approach is limiting but might be the right model for some folks.

 

the industry is going full circle. back in the day everything was 100% proprietary then we got a glimmer of kinda open and now everyone is heading back to proprietary. I hope everyone has to start using hardware keys.

Since Bluetooth mesh arrived and it's very stable, people want that in commercial because you can more easily combine HVAC and lighting.

Why not wifi mesh? it seems you could get better distance with wifi over bluetooth, plus it's a bigger pipe to push more edge data.

 

Why not wifi mesh? it seems you could get better distance with wifi over bluetooth, plus it's a bigger pipe to push more edge data.

We run a dual antenna wifi mesh in the controllers. In the browser you can upload a floorplan, put the nodes down, draw the paths (if you want) and view the signal strengths. I'd say nicely done idea. But, in my opinion BLE is more stable. And, if you consider there's a nearby IP controller, that takes care of when you need the bigger pipe. The lighting industry seems to really like the PoE idea, but it's all proprietary and all too expensive. Lots are now moving to BLE. BLE is published and working well for us. Added bonus is using beaconing to pick up various and do things like asset tracking. Most sensor and IO for BLE is small, so don't need a controller for that. Some of those sensors are battery powered. And, it is also mesh tech.

 

The answers have already been touched on by previous replies, but to sum it up:

The Niagara platform is an "industry standard" of sorts, having been used by so many companies. Many people coming from a wide variety of control lines are familiar with it, which helps with service down the line. There's a reason engineers spec it, and that being Niagara Certified is a good credential to have searching for a job.

The Niagara platform is incredibly powerful, and can do things a lot of competitive platforms can't, particularly when it comes to integration. For years, various competitors to Niagara have been trying to claim they are just as good or better, but the opinion of most in the field often... doesn't quite back those claims up, to put it mildly.

Of course all that power can come with disadvantages. Tridium can be clunky with some things, for one example how long they relied on Java for web access, compared to some competitors. And they aren't always super easy or intuitive to program - the end user experience depends heavily on how the dealer is - though some companies like Distech have worked to make stuff like graphics a bit easier and more automated out of the box for a basic system.

Time will tell whether Distech's alternative solution is a true competitor, or just comes to be seen a "watered down" take on Niagara. Personally, I would love to see Tridium get "disrupted" but I just don't see it happening soon. Nobody is going to build up the wide variety of 3rd party protocol drivers they have anytime soon, and that alone will knock them out of considerations for the most sophisticated customers/projects.

 

Most seen to go with bacnet, modbus and enocean. What protocols are you referring to?

 

When I last looked a year ago, the ability for an S1000 to integrate external BACNet points was really clunky. It may be better, but it has not been particularly functional since day one. Also, last time I looked, there was no way to update email addresses used for alarming outside of GFX. Not great for end users.

We sell 30 or so JACES used exclusively for Lon each year. Our competitors tell the owner they MUST rip out all the old Honeywell VAV controllers now, along with the comm bus, to be replaced with all new IP infrastructure. That comes with a $50k price tag. I can put in a new JACE and Lon interface in place of an old 403 and replace a couple failed Lon Spyders with ECL-VAVS for $8k. Guess who gets the job? End users don't care about IP except the occasional executive type who doesn't actually operate the system. Please keep pushing the narrative that everything must go BACNet/IP since it makes all of my competitors look like fools or scammers when I deliver a functional system upgrade for 1/7 of the price.

Massive new warehouse with MAUs more than 300 feet apart. My competition wants to install in line repeaters for the BACnet/IP. I can sling RS-485 cable in between the units and it doesn't really matter how far apart they are.

Let's say I'm using a ECY-S1000 as the front end on a asite. I find out that the power meter just sold through the EC is actually Modbus and not BACnet like they were suppose to be. EC has no idea what that means and will drag out getting it fixed over the span of a month after numerous phone calls, that is assuming the manufacture even has a BACnet option. Alternative, I can pay distech for another license on the S-1000, If I had a JACE, its already there.

The break even point on cost using an ECB-VAVS vs an ECY-VAV is somewhere around 46 VAVs on a single job. Any more than that and MSTP controllers with a JACE is less money. The bigger the job, the savings grows much more quickly. This is assuming you needed the S1000 for something else and were not buying it just as the interface.

 

When I last looked a year ago, the ability for an S1000 to integrate external BACNet points was really clunky. It may be better, but it has not been particularly functional since day one.

I think a year ago it grew a discover feature... a little more. Before that it was miserable.
But I think OP is referring to the APEX as a head end, not the S1000.
FWIW.

 

Those very old hwell controllers will have other issues, to be fair to the "other guys". We could go similar. Take in all the LON controllers for half the JACE pricing and no SMA. And, for new construction we can do 30 IP VAV's less than you can do MSTP with a JACE, and do it much faster. Actually, we can even use Distech MSTP VAV's, and do that faster and less expensively than an ECBOS setup. I am surprised they would bring out their own product as more expensive than their third party offering.

For new construction, nobody is using RS485 for controller communication. Any time and OEM is dropped in with RSTP, they immediately get it to IP.

 

For new construction, nobody is using RS485 for controller communication.

Maybe NOBODY is hyperbole.... fewer maybe?