Hi Leon
This is going to be a problem moving forwards then as all of the Fibaro units seem to be moving to the new version \"2\" models that are Z-Wave Plus certified and support power monitoring and OTA upgrading etc.
Surely if Vera can support such comms then Comfort needs to, and should be able to, as well if you are to keep up with the world.
Has anyone asked Fibaro why it is like this?
What does that pepper.net report for the previous generation dimmers as I\'d like to see the difference. ie the FGD-211.
Also does the Roller Shutter 2 (FGR-222) for example have the same issue?
Ju
Then maybe Cytech can ask Fibaro where their roadmap is heading then in this area as your are more likely to get an answer that us mere \"Joe Public\" mortals!
Still think if Vera can support then Cytech needs to as well as it suggested their support for functionality of ZWave devices goes deeper.
Vera is a software that is specifically designed for Zwave.
Comfort supports many different systems including Cbus, KNX, Zwave, eHomeGreen, etc as an embedded solution so it is not comparable. We will not be able to support the hundred of classes which are defined by Zwave which includes many rarely used classes, otherwise our R&D will have no time for other work, just keeping up with Zwave changes.
The \"Basic Set\" command in Zwave was supposed to be supported by All Zwave devices. Now there is a device which does NOT support basic set command unless it is encrypted. Why is this necessary for a dimmer? This sort of \"feature\" will be incompatible with 99 % of controllers, and put an end to the inter-operablity of Zwave so it seems to be a backward step.
We recommend that Zwave devices with the standard functions like dimmers, switches, relays, sensors be used with UCM/Zwave not those devices which implement non standard or non-compatible features as these cannot be supported.
We will have to list what are the products which do not work with UCM/Zwave
So FGD-212 (Fibaro Dimmer 2) is not compatible with UCM/Zwave. There are other zwave dimmers which can be used instead.
Hi
I started the discussion on the Fibaro forum and they have replied (see link below). Seems to me their argument is sound and depends on what mode you run your primary controller. Maybe you can join the conversation too in reply to their response and my original question. That said it seems to me that Cytech need to suppory secure mode asap if this UCM is to keep up.
Ju
http://forum.fibaro.com/index.php?/topic...entry78796
What I understand from that post is that you need to include the device in Nonsecure mode in HC2 if you want other nonsecure controllers to work with it, which seems like the best way to fix this , rather than have UCM/Zwave support secure mode to control a dimmer.
I dont see why you would need to have encryption for a dimmer
By the way there may be other problems in using encryption because there are many more messages between the devices in order to learn and communicate. This may be problematic if you have more than a few devices.
juwi_uk wrote: Quote:Hi
I started the discussion on the Fibaro forum and they have replied (see link below). Seems to me their argument is sound and depends on what mode you run your primary controller. Maybe you can join the conversation too in reply to their response and my original question. That said it seems to me that Cytech need to suppory secure mode asap if this UCM is to keep up.
Ju
http://forum.fibaro.com/index.php?/topic...entry78796
With reference to your link, this is my view on the reply.
Even if dimmer 2 can \"re-included in HC2 and this time do not use secure mode\", it will make not much difference. The dimmer 2 firmware is programmed to do Basic command class (and some others) transmissions in secure mode only. Maybe someone can try out to see if this is true.
Also need to point out one more issue. Although dimmer 2 can control other devices in non-secure mode via association, other devices (such as their own dimmer v1) cannot control dimmer 2 via association. This is because other devices (dimmer v1) do not support secure command class. It is only 1 way control.
Perhaps you could post on the Fibaro forum Leon or get confirmation of your assumption because at the moment it\'s looking like I\'ll need to retire my UCM too and just use the Fibaro HC2 for automation for now then as this is obviously the way they are going with their units for some reason or another.Ju
I have same problem. My system using 92 output plus 15 lamp group controlled by FGD 212 . The system just installed . I have no option instead using FGD 212 ... because the only zwave dimmer that can control trailing edge dimming protocol for my philips lamp . So its very dispointed ..the ucm not compatible .. this make the reason why i choose comfort because its strenght as integrator become gone :X
It is not possible or practical for UCM/Zwave to support all known Z-Wave classes, and more are introduced all the time. Hence you have to ensure that if you want the whole Z-wave network to be supported by UCM/Zwave, it is necessary to check what classes are required for the device. The constant changes in my opinion will only lead to the fragmentation of the standard in that other controllers will not be able to support these new devices. In contrast, CBus and KNX have a protocol which is stable but at the same time support a huge variety of products and manufacturers (in the case of KNX)
If you have no option but to use this FGD 212 which requires encryption for dimming (which seems illogical) because no other Z-wave device supports trailing edge dimming, then dont you think it is a problem of not having other manufacturers of trailing edge dimmers available in Z-Wave instead of the fault of UCM/Zwave of not supporting encryption for dimmers?
