"Today's subsystems are so powerful that it makes going with Control4 much easier. The one area we are still working out is the interface and larger touchscreens. The client wants to have a floor plan view of systems like security, lighting, etc. and a 28,000-square-foot home on a 7-inch panel. That's pretty much a joke. This is where having a system like Vantage, with the ability to talk to Control4, gives us additional options. Control4 plans on a producing a larger screen over the next year, but I can't hang my hat on that and need a working plan now."
Might this have been a reason to not go with Control4 on such a larger project? Seems strange to me to use Vantage to control Control4.
There you go, being logical....
Maybe that is why companies like Crestron and AMX make large touchpanels.
CEDIA University Designer CAT Team Member CEDIA University Instructor CEDIA Registered Outreach Instructor
Mark, do you want to read about Ed's projects? He does some unique stuff. What about mine where I deal with trying to explain to rural contractors in the Appalachian Mountains why the $5mill vacation house they are building should have automation, and then butting heads with electricians that don't like that my lighting system changes the way they wire? No? But these are our lives so shouldn't they make great articles?
Get the point yet?
Fins,
Sounds like a great article to me and other dealers would like it too. Every story or project is always the tip of the iceberg, there are hundreds of your contemporaries doing the same kind of work facing the same problems. I didn't name the story and we addressed this a long time ago, can you find something with a little merit to slam me for? I would never chose a company based just on their touchscreens, especially today with so many new, better and more affordable choices. The less I spend on touchscreen and programming the more I have for other areas. There was never going to be full disclosure of this project only a peek behind the curtain and how things happen. We won't, for reason of security, post the whole project design on the Internet. More a slice of life kind of story with, we hope, some useful information dealers can take away and use. Vantage won't control C4 but it will be a stand alone system reporting back to C4 on status. HVAC will also report back to C4 but will run its own programming independently.
Might this have been a reason to not go with Control4 on such a larger project? Seems strange to me to use Vantage to control Control4.
That's personally "one" of the reason I felt C4 wouldn't fit such a large job, most large projects require the whole house plan for control.. however I am anxious to see how it will end up.. if it all works for the best it'd definitely be a good marketing buzz for C4
"Today's subsystems are so powerful that it makes going with Control4 much easier. The one area we are still working out is the interface and larger touchscreens. The client wants to have a floor plan view of systems like security, lighting, etc. and a 28,000-square-foot home on a 7-inch panel. That's pretty much a joke. This is where having a system like Vantage, with the ability to talk to Control4, gives us additional options. Control4 plans on a producing a larger screen over the next year, but I can't hang my hat on that and need a working plan now."
Might this have been a reason to not go with Control4 on such a larger project? Seems strange to me to use Vantage to control Control4.
Anyone with an understanding of a lighting system is going to know that its not controlling the main automation system.... C4 will be controlling the vantage system..
That's personally "one" of the reason I felt C4 wouldn't fit such a large job, most large projects require the whole house plan for control.. however I am anxious to see how it will end up.. if it all works for the best it'd definitely be a good marketing buzz for C4
or the strange reason that no one really knows the system design and keep making stupid assumptions on things... I have a feeling the project will work 100% perfectly and meet/exceed the clients expectations
Now having following this the Thread Title of 20 Mill install is misleading from my gathering. 20 Mill house right? Not 20 mill in AV and lighting equipment right? HUGE difference. I think Mark and a few others are really taking this and pushing wording limits.
I've worked with 20 mill homes and calling BS in all this C4 stuff. Show us a list of designed/engineered equipment. Show us the AV prints and gather some crediabilty. Other wise it's all just talk isn't it? (Here comes the grammer Police for this last part.. (Ernie))..
On October 16, 2010 at 12:04, BlackWire Designs said...
Anyone with an understanding of a lighting system is going to know that its not controlling the main automation system.... C4 will be controlling the vantage system..
I understand lighting but seems like you are not following the architecture he is proposing with that statement :).
He implied he is going to use a Vantage touchscreen to address the C4 since the latter does not have big enough touchscreen and client doesn't want an iPad. That to me is "controlling the C4 with Vantage." And it has nothing to do with lighting one way or the other.
This approach introduces a ton of unneeded complexity. For example, can he still use C4 touchscreen GUI design tool? I assume not. Are vantage GUI tools designed to easily configure and manage C4? I assume not. So lots of programming is now called for to glue all of this together. All because a control system was picked in advance of knowing client's need for larger touchscreen.
Will he have to keep multiple state in two control systems and keep them in sync? Probably. Programmers will be tempted to keep variables in both control systems as to avoid having to go back and forth and with it, creating a world of grief later. While there are ways to build such systems reliably, they often are not and lead to systems that are inherently not stable, performant, or both.
To have the system be circular as you correctly state, is even more weird. User touches a button on Vantage touchscreen, that signal goes into Vantage control system, then gets routed to C4 (over IP or serial?), then sent back to Vantage to turn on a light. What on earth is the C4 doing in that loop anyway? If Vantage is smart enough controller to be the middleman for the C4, it can be promoted to do everything itself.
In a traditional system, the lighting controller is not the user interface. It is a subsystem, getting told to change lighting loads. Touchscreen interface is to the control system which orchestrates the entire home. He is deviating substantially in how things are done. So your comment should be addressed to him, not me :).
Seems to me, he will be better off using Vantage for all control and lighting and do away with C4. Some amount of losing face now, will save him a ton of grief later. I can't tell you how many times I have seen systems fail because there are multiple masters. If at all possible, you want to have a single node of control. If some control task doesn't work, now he has to look through two source paths.
But perhaps I am mistaken and they know better than me as you say :). If so, I suggest that they tell us how they are doing it and benefit from the collective wisdom of the forum on whether that approach works. Again, pride should be secondary to doing a good job for the customer in having a system that works well and is easy to maintain in the future. I don't buy the line that some things they want to keep secret for the sake of the client. The kind of client that is so secretive would have never given permission to have his house project published in this manner.
I have a feeling the project will work 100% perfectly and meet/exceed the clients expectations
Sophisticated systems like this should not be designed based on having "feelings" that something will work. You need to know. He is walking down untraveled path and for no tangible reason explained. While I enjoy reading the articles, I cringed big time when I read the paragraph I posted. Red alarm bells are going off that problem has been discovered, and folks are thanking themselves that Vantage has a control surface that in theory can be used. Taking that paper theory and making it work in practice are two different things.
I know they will put something together that makes things work. But in this state of the project, it is time for them to rethink why they are where they are and see if there is a better path forward. The problem at hand could not be more clear. The solution, no muddier :).
Floorplans can be done with an iPad. Not sure why anyone thinks you need a larger screen. Jump to 3:40 in the video below.
Here is another option for "global view". So rather than try and lay out a funky floor plan you can use a grid pattern for each room and use icons within the grid. Jump to 1:15 in the video below to see the room list. FYI.. im using this video to show what your global view grid pattern would look like. Use your imagination to place security sensors, lighting and av icons.
Vantage sending a command from a keypad to C4 is just that, sending status or a conditional statement, C4 will respond to and initiate an action. The lighting is stand alone and will work great, HVAC is stand alone and reliable, Control4 can handle the audio just fine, Just add power will give us great video distribution (I know Amir, you don't agree), but with so many systems being tried, true and standalone what is so muddy. The user interface will be keypads, in-wall touch panels (C4) and 3-4 (C4 or other) larger panels that we have yet to decide on. What exactly is a "traditional system"? Like anyone in our channel could define "normal", we set standards each and everyday with new products. HDMI switching is fairly new but it seems to be the new standard, as least for now. Control4 will be the interface and controller for all systems. iPads aren't native to Crestron or Savant, but are a big part of these companies today. I remember putting in my first "Quadraphonic" 8 track system with reverb, WOW, how cool was that back in the 70's. Surround didin't come back on the market for over a decade. Things are going to change, mistakes will be made, opportunities will be lost but no one can look back and say "that is the way we have always done things". Trying new ways of doing things is our business. Finding reasons not to like something seems to be a full time job for some.
I would also like to get in on the fun, so do you have any suggestions on valid points which I can use to slam you on the web forums?
Eagerly anticipating your reply, Rick.
List of points to use on Mark 1. My hair is thinning. 2. My wife is way too good looking to have married me 3. I have liberal views but like guns, 4 Wheeling and any number of other bad habits. 4. While I train on design/engineering I outsource this work for all my projects (if you aren't doing it everyday it just takes time to ramp up, it gets done faster and cheaper). 5. I use color in my designs 6. I am only loyal to a manufacturer so long as their sh#t works and they take care of their dealers 7. I don't buy into a lot of the hype surrounding speakers, wire and such. 8. I think every system needs to be built to satisfy the clients needs and budget and not some prima dona sales guys. 9. This is a big one, I don't listen to as much loud Rock & Roll as I used to, nowadays more zydeco, jazz, outlaw country and classic rock.
On October 16, 2010 at 14:46, Prime Design said...
Vantage sending a command from a keypad to C4 is just that, sending status or a conditional statement, C4 will respond to and initiate an action.
How would you overlay the floorplan on a keypad??? Please read again what I quoted from the article. It seems that they are going to use Vantage touchscreen to control the entire house, not C4, and obviously not using a keypad.
The architecture of that system would call for both controllers to be in sync with each other. Imagine if I use the C4 OSD and remote to change something in the home. That state must now be reflected back to the Vantage touchscreen or it shows the wrong state for that event. So life is a lot more complicated now. What used to be simple with one control system, no longer is with two. Any savings on C4 hardware is now dwarfed by the extra programming and debugging costs.
The lighting is stand alone and will work great, HVAC is stand alone and reliable, Control4 can handle the audio just fine, Just add power will give us great video distribution (I know Amir, you don't agree), but with so many systems being tried, true and standalone what is so muddy. The user interface will be keypads, in-wall touch panels (C4) and 3-4 (C4 or other) larger panels that we have yet to decide on. What exactly is a "traditional system"?
It is mostly what you described except that the touch screens attach to the control system and do not take a turn though another one to get there. The part "you haven't decided on" is what I am talking about. That being the core of how the customer wants to use the system is essential in the equation, not an afterthought to deal with later.
Like anyone in our channel could define "normal", we set standards each and everyday with new products.
It is true that people should be free to innovate. I am all for that and these custom solutions provide plenty of opportunity for that. But there has to be a good reason to do things differently -- see Stamp's iPad video. Based on what is stated so far, if I pull out the C4 and put in AMX/Crestron, I come out ahead from complexity of programming the touchscreen. I don't have to deal with another control system in the middle. Yet no benefit is spelled out for the current approach.
Things are going to change, mistakes will be made, opportunities will be lost but no one can look back and say "that is the way we have always done things". Trying new ways of doing things is our business. Finding reasons not to like something seems to be a full time job for some.
I am all about innovation and doing things better. But just spell it out. After all, this is a project that is being published so scrutiny of it is par for the course. It is disappointing to see the secrecy card pulled on us when we ask for an explanation of what seems to have been a critical mistake in how the system was spec'ed (not knowing client needs and product availability in the control suite to address it). Again, there may be greater wisdom than what I have but I wont' know it unless it is shared.
PS I don't dislike JAP products and was the person defending its legitimate use. I did find it to have a poor image at Infocomm and disappointed that my suggestions to configure TV correctly was not taken seriously. That's all.
Please read the following: Unsolicited commercial advertisements are absolutely not permitted on this forum. Other private buy & sell messages should be posted to our Marketplace. For information on how to advertise your service or product click here. Remote Central reserves the right to remove or modify any post that is deemed inappropriate.
