PAC via CBUS?

Hi,

Just wondering when we'll be able to program the PAC via CBUS? For remote support / installations the ethernet interface is great, except you can't reprogram the PAC, you have to physically go onsite with a laptop and cable.

I know this has been complained about before, any idea when there will be a fix?

Thanks,

Paul

 

I've never used a PAC before but what about a Serial-to-Ethernet converter? I use it on my PCI to do remote configuration, the setup is just like you would for a CNI.

 

I'm pretty sure you can program a PAC via the CBus network. When I first got my PAC I plugged in the USB, upgraded the firmware and then transferred some basic logic to it. Then I unplugged the USB and reprogrammed it via CBus. It took about 15-20 minutes. I've always used USB since, so can't remember exactly what I did to program it over CBus.

 

The only way I've been able to program it via CBUS is if the USB port has just been used. I think it must detect a USB connection and put itself into a mode where it can be programmed (either via CBUS or the cable). If you try programming directly from CBUS without first connecting via USB it fails.

 

I queried this when they first announced the PAC. I cant comprehend why they put a USB port on the PAC instead of an Ethernet port.

Not only would remote programming have been possible, but control/interfacing with Ethernet enabled devices could have been a possibility (it has serial ports so why not Ethernet).

It also allows local programming to be done remotely to the unit. Imagine if you didn't have a laptop? What do you do then, build a long c-bus cable so you can drag the PAC to the PC every time, or lug the desktop over to the PAC.

I am still confused at the decision.

Mick

 

There are several reasons for having the PAC programmable by USB rather than Ethernet:
1. Ethernet interfaces use quite a bit of current and it would be difficult to power such a device from C-Bus alone. Needing a DC plug pack for each PAC would be very unpopular with the majority of users.
2. You would need to have an Ethernet infrastructure in place and wired to the PAC in order to be able to program it. This would not be suitable in many instances.
3. The product would be more expensive.
4. The product would be more difficult to commission. Ethernet based devices are a lot more complex to get going. You have to deal with static IP/DHCP, netmasks and so on.
5. Our market research indicated that the preference was for USB.

We recommend using the Colour C-Touch if these things are needed.

Having a laptop is really a pre-requisite for C-Bus installers.

I hope this clarifies it for you.

I agree that an Ethernet based device like a PAC would be nice to have, and it is something we have discussed. However it would not be suitable as the only option.

 

fair statement. What about POE - its a viable option so that a local power source is not required. Might not be as unpopular as travelling to the residence to upload a software mod.

Crossover cable - no different then a usb cable

when compared to the cost of travelling to a site to make a change as opposed to doing it remotely it may work out cheaper in the long run. Expensive is a subjective term.

Opinion - I find ethernet devices are not difficult. I have seen many posts on USB devices not working. Drivers are needed to use USB, web interface can be used with ethernet

You did not ask me....

Crazy talk - install a screen just to get ethernet in a system that may be running a HA application already (Homegate, Crestron etc.)

But installers are not the only one who can program a system - granted most have a laptop these days, but still a a PITA to have to go to it to program it.

Unfortunately the USB version is the only option. Clipsal obviously recognised the need for Ethernet connectivity with the introduction of the CNI, yet failed to deliver on their powerful automation controller.
It is obvious that my ramblings alone will never convince anyone within Clipsal, but it is nice to be able to express my opinion here regardless.

Mick

 

I second the POE option.

 

Heaps of people in Clipsal would like to see ethernet based PAC and POE devices (like a POE CNI). But wanting doesn't always translate to having the resources (time + money) to bring those products to market at this point in time.

Like you say, having a more expensive product can be offset by the time saving of not going to site. I think that is an excellent argument to support installing a Colour C-Touch for it's ethernet capabilities, it's a solution that is available right now.