- Posted on
Mon Aug 05, 2013 10:00 am
-
dduff617
offline
-
- Posts: 660
- Joined: Jul 05, 2006
- Location: Massachusetts, USA
yes, i have remotelinc with some direct links setup to controlled devices.
so based on your comment, my guess is that the remotelinc sends the initial group command and then, a) indigo/powerlinc "hears" it, the triggers kick in, and additional insteon commands are sent and b) the remotelinc sends a group cleanup command and the controlled device(s) send responses. it seems that these two parallel series of actions are causing signal conflicts in a very repeatable way and that the devices involved are somehow not "smart enough" to detect these collision and avoid them or work around them by retransmitting, etc.
so is it the case that the probability of collision increases when series b above is more involved - i.e. when the remotelinc is trying to communicate with multiple devices (vs. only to the powerlinc controller)? while i realize that i can approximate some of the same functionality by only linking to the powerlinc and then creating triggers in indigo, i have - perhaps stubbornly - resisted going this route over the last few years. some reasons:
#1 response. probably the most important reason. i sometimes like the immediacy, directness, and instant feedback i get when (for example) using a remotelinc to control local lights. it feels very much like a directly-connected (non-insteon) dimmer switch in this regard. there is little or no delay.
#2 dimming. (closely related to #1) if i want it a brighter background lighting in my bedroom when i'm reading at night, i can bump up the brightness a little bit (for a set of multiple lamps around the room). because the response is direct and immediate, i can set a light level i like easily and with no "overshoot", no devices getting out of sync, etc. my recollection is fuzzy, but i believe insteon has some fairly low-level support for dimming and push-and-hold type actions between a controller and responder that (i assume) would be hard to duplicate with powerlinc/indigo trying to act as a middleman in the communication.
#3 independence from controller. i made it a goal of my HA installation and configurations that when possible, the system should at least preserve the pre-HA level of function. so for example, when i automate a 3-way or 4-way switch in the house, i go to some lengths to put in multiple switches in the same locations with linking setup so that (with no controller, no motion sensor, etc.) the house will still behave essentially the same as it was originally designed to do - even when doing so is technically not really necessary in the automated environment. generally this means, that if i move out and sell my house, many/most of basic control functions (at least for lighting) will still work - ditto if my HA controller system happens to be down for any reason. this doesn't really apply directly in the case of the remotelinc (since nothing about how the remotelinc works has anything to do with the "pre-HA" state) i think to some extent, i set up the remotelinc this way to be consistent with how i have done other n-way switches in the house - so perhaps that's actually a fourth reason, "consistency".