Comfort Home Automation/ Security System Forums Home
Home Search search Menu menu Not logged in - Login | Register

Comfort or C-Bus logic?
 Moderated by: admin
 New Topic   Reply   Printer Friendly 
 Rate Topic 
AuthorPost
 Posted: Wednesday Aug 21st, 2013 09:54 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
1st Post
jmwhooper
Member
 

Joined: Friday May 25th, 2007
Location:  
Posts: 9
Status: 
Offline

  back to top

I'm soon going to install a Comfort alarm and a C-Bus system but I'm wondering if it's better to use the Comfort logic to control the alarm and C-Bus, or to use the C-Bus PAC PICED login controller to control them both?

If I use the C-Bus PAC do I still need a Comfort to C-Bus UCM, or can I connect from one of the PAC RS-232 ports onto the main Comfort board then have the PAC handle any logic?

In terms of logic, I'd rather use one or the other and not mix logic across both systems. Is there a preference, is one much easier to work with or more powerful than the other?

Thanks



 Posted: Thursday Aug 22nd, 2013 02:48 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
2nd Post
ident
Administrator


Joined: Wednesday Aug 9th, 2006
Location: Singapore
Posts: 3497
Status: 
Offline

  back to top

You will still need the UCM/Cbus to talk to cbus even if you have the PAC. The Rs232 port will not work with Comfort

We believe that the Comfort programming logic is more powerful and easier to  use that the PAC logic, although you should hear from others who have used PAC

It is also cheaper since it is already built in into Comfort



 Posted: Thursday Aug 22nd, 2013 04:33 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
3rd Post
Ingo
Advanced Member


Joined: Sunday Jan 21st, 2007
Location: South Africa
Posts: 541
Status: 
Offline

  back to top

The PAC is more expensive but I prefer using my PAC for Logic rather than Comfort. That said, I also use Comfort Logic for smaller tasks. I am sure you will end up using both. PAC for CBus specific stuff and Comfort for Comfort specific stuff.

Ingo



 Posted: Thursday Aug 22nd, 2013 07:48 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
4th Post
jmwhooper
Member
 

Joined: Friday May 25th, 2007
Location:  
Posts: 9
Status: 
Offline

  back to top

I think you're right, I probably will end up using a little bit of one and lots of the other. I'll have a play with both programming tools and see what I think.

Thanks



 Posted: Thursday Aug 22nd, 2013 06:25 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
5th Post
palmlodge
Advanced Member
 

Joined: Thursday Dec 14th, 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 477
Status: 
Offline

  back to top

FWIW, as a Comfort/CBUS user for about 10 years, all my logic is in Comfort. I don't use the PAC for anything, and never have. It is in the box somewhere.

Comfort sees more of CBUS than CBUS sees of Comfort, and with other systems bolted onto Comfort it becomes the hub for everything. The only weakpoint has always been the CBUS UCM, but that has been better since I had a new UCM board about 2 years or so ago. I didn't update the CBUS UCM to the newer versions as there were issues and they were never explained nor confirmed fixed by Cytech.



 Posted: Friday Aug 23rd, 2013 03:41 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
6th Post
Howser
Member
 

Joined: Monday May 22nd, 2006
Location: Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 194
Status: 
Offline

  back to top

Ingo wrote: The PAC is more expensive but I prefer using my PAC for Logic rather than Comfort. That said, I also use Comfort Logic for smaller tasks. I am sure you will end up using both. PAC for CBus specific stuff and Comfort for Comfort specific stuff.

Ingo

I am with Ingo on this. I use both as well. I bought my PAC when they first came out,  a bit expensive though.

I would add that for me, I find that the two, compliments each other very well.

Howser



 Posted: Friday Aug 23rd, 2013 09:16 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
7th Post
Home
Comfort Distributors
 

Joined: Wednesday Jul 12th, 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 558
Status: 
Offline

  back to top

As a system designer and installer the first thin I think about is point of failure. The more you 'integrate' the greater the reliance of one system on the other. Hence if one item fails then the whole system fails !
Make sure you keep security (comfort ) as security and lighting ( cbus) as lighting. When it comes to logic and 'remote control' then we tend to treat this as a seperate entity. What we see happening more and more is for the app controller to incorporate logic if the app controller fails ( it's a network enabled device ) the you loose control though your app - you still have a security system that you can arm and disarm and a light switch that puts a light on and off .

This does not answer your question - presumably you are happy to program in pascal ! I think all of the above posts reflect that it comes down to personal choice



 Posted: Sunday Aug 25th, 2013 11:48 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
8th Post
slychiu
Administrator


Joined: Saturday Apr 29th, 2006
Location: Singapore
Posts: 4172
Status: 
Offline

  back to top

To program in Pascal, you would need to know the syntax and programming rules.

To program Comfort Responses, you select from a drop down list in various categories and select from a list of parameters
eg Output > select Output Number > select On, Off, Toggle, Flash

In the end PAC programming controls Cbus group addresses so that simplifies it a little

For Comfort, the programming can be for output control, IR signals, KNX, CBus, Zwave, security, and can be triggered by many different events including Time Programs, Zones, Alarms, Cbus, KNX, Zwave etc so the scope of programming is much wider

If you have a PAC, I expect it makes sense to use it to program Cbus

if you dont have a PAC, then everything can still be programmed by Comfort that you would use PAC for (that is my guess)



 Current time is 12:18 pm
Top




UltraBB 1.172 Copyright © 2007-2014 Data 1 Systems