Posts: 9
Threads: 4
Joined: May 2007
Reputation:
0
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
Posts: 3,493
Threads: 476
Joined: Aug 2006
Reputation:
0
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
Posts: 616
Threads: 62
Joined: Jan 2007
Reputation:
1
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
Posts: 9
Threads: 4
Joined: May 2007
Reputation:
0
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
Posts: 510
Threads: 98
Joined: Dec 2006
Reputation:
0
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.
Posts: 788
Threads: 189
Joined: Jul 2006
Reputation:
0
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
Posts: 5,941
Threads: 868
Joined: Apr 2006
Reputation:
2
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)
