Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Some early thoughts on 5.4
#11
Really? I watched the first (simple) rule setup video. He probably went through twenty five different steps to set up that extremely simple rule. It seemed far more labor intensive to set up than a simple triggered event with one filter and a five'ish line action or thereabouts.
Dean Roddey
Software Geek Extraordinaire
Reply
#12
BTW, I'm not saying it's not to be done. Just that that seemed horribly implemented and a lot more confusing than how it would be done in CQC. I guess some of it was 'this is HTML, not a real application' problems, so it was all very awkward UI-wise. If we did something of that sort we could make it vastly more streamlined, I think.

Obviously we could have a 'generic' rule of that sort with three parts:

1. Chose what fields have to change to trigger it, and what values of those fields represent a true state
2. Provide true (and optionally false) actions to do based on the result of #1
3. Provide any limitations on when it can run
Dean Roddey
Software Geek Extraordinaire
Reply
#13
I will throw in 2 cents, not mine but found it here on the forum...  CQC stood out for me with its diverse device and protocol support. I feel lately that this is falling behind...
Dean will say that he cannot support each and every device out there, and I agree with that, but supporting protocols like MQTT would open CQC to a whole new world.
Reply
#14
It would be nice for the next release to really spend some time concentrating on new drivers.

Something like MQTT I'm iffy on. That's a big separate moving part , and it would have approximately zero appeal in the pro world which makes it a hard sell given the amount of work that anything super-generic like tends to be (i.e. where one driver has to expose all kinds of different stuff.) I'm not totally against it, I just have my doubts at this point.
Dean Roddey
Software Geek Extraordinaire
Reply
#15
I hear you Dean. But ask your PROs how many times they get the question from customers: "do you support device x?" Or " can you add device Y to my control screen?" At the rate device drivers become available, companies have long gone out of business before CQC supports them. You can maintain a walled garden but by the time you notice that nobody is inside, it will be too late.
Another point is that your PROs will never be bothered to write a driver, with due respect, so it is up to you and your fanbase to decide what to support.
Reply
#16
(07-01-2018, 01:18 PM)Dean Roddey Wrote: It would be nice for the next release to really spend some time concentrating on new drivers.

Something like MQTT I'm iffy on. That's a big separate moving part , and it would have approximately zero appeal in the pro world which makes it a hard sell given the amount of work that anything super-generic like tends to be (i.e. where one driver has to expose all kinds of different stuff.) I'm not totally against it, I just have my doubts at this point.

I think you are vastly underestimating the potential value of having an open interface bus to the explosion of Internet of Things devices out there.  All that is needed is an MQTT client, you don't need to provide a server, there are many out there. The client subscribes to things it is interested in receiving / sending messages about.  There are other products / solutions to manage the IoT stuff like Node Red, etc.
Reply
#17
Shouldn't the focus be more on using CQC as a central brain rather than so much energy being poured into exotic lash ups.  I've sort of peripherally been pursuing through those threads and posts and I don't even know what the acronyms stand for.

I can understand clearly that highly advanced technical individuals thrive on pushing the envelope one more exciting step, but how much of the user base actually uses some of these things beyond the two or three people actively pursuing it in their posts and experimentation.

Meantime, the driver category where all of the non-fun, pain in the butt stuff resides goes wanting.  Driver development is a boring place to be working.  Yet, what is the first thing perspective new users of software like CQC look at.  I suspect it's driver support.

Thanks to our resident guru, Dean, CQC occupies a unique position.  The most reliable and robust software on the market that's reachable by the masses.  Shouldn't it interface with it's environment at a level that matches it's overall capability.

I don't anticipate this post will exactly enhance my relationship with Dean, whom I greatly respect, but someone has to point out that this has turned into a world of half a dozen or so individuals getting all of the attention on development.  I'm feeling pushed into a corner to have to look around for a replacement for CQC, and I'll only do that kicking and screaming.  Mine has been awesome in it's stability and fault free performance.  Perhaps that's because I've only asked it to do what a home automation software should be doing, not loading it down with one gee-whiz after another.
Reply
#18
To be fair, they would argue that supporting MQTT would make a lot of devices available to CQC, and hence it would be in effect concentrating on device drivers, in the sense that a driver for MQTT would be a sort of uber-driver for a whole system, not just a specific device.

My problem with it, as you say, is that it's more down the road of Raspberry Pi's and open source and such, whereas we probably need to spend time making it easier to use and set up for the core stuff.

What specifically are you interested in seeing?
Dean Roddey
Software Geek Extraordinaire
Reply
#19
I guess it's arguable that, if we look at what would make the product easier to get into, some things would be:

1. Take the auto-gen up a couple more notches. Maybe adding support for cameras, for setting up some common scheduled events and the interface to manage the schedule, for setting up some common triggered events, and a few things like that.

2. Maybe more auto-detection of common devices and interrogation of those devices where that's supported, for auto-setup of the driver.

3. Maybe another whack at CQC Voice to see if we can get it up another notch. There are some folks using it, and if we could polish it up considerably more, it could be quite useful and vastly easier to set up than the Echo. And, this is something that pros would be much more likely to consider (assuming we can get the speech recognition level up), because it doesn't require opening their customer systems up to the outside and dealing with AWS and all that. They just hook up the mic and configure it.

4. I'd argue maybe for a bit jump in functionality and interface for our CQSL media repo. Some folks will scoff at that and say there's already My Movies and J.River and such. But those things require manual integration and will never be fully integrated and auto-magical. This is also something that would help us with the pros who just won't use stuff like My Movies or J.River, because they don't want to deal with integrating a bunch of bits and pieces for a media solution, particularly one that isn't tightly integrated. And some of those types of programs are way more powerful than 99% of people need, because they have to constantly compete on features, even if most of them aren't even understood by almost all users of them.


There are probably others that would come to mind in that vein. Definitely though we need to make it easier to get into. Some of that will be documentation and I hope to make quite a number of new videos over the next release cycle, covering a lot of topics.
Dean Roddey
Software Geek Extraordinaire
Reply
#20
I have no idea what MQTT is.  The Raspberry Pi's and Arduino's are very interesting products, but I doubt they are considered basic to the home automation world.  More to the experimenter world.  I'm in the process of building a large model railroad and numerous Arduinos will be used.  But none will be in my home automation.

What's going to drive me away from CQC, if anything possibly could, will be the lack of a driver for HunterDouglas PowerView and somebody else has it.  It's the hottest selling motorized shade system going.  I sell two or three systems a week.  Unlike Lutron, which has a very limited selection of yesteryear shade products, PowerView is available on the entire Hunter Douglas shade collection, the largest in the world.  Yet, Lutron has drivers.

So, to answer your question, it's the one we have had previous discussions about.  Hunter Douglas PowerView.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  RIVA Web Image Widget support thoughts/questions for post-3.1 SamVimes2 3 2,080 02-01-2010, 06:33 AM
Last Post: wuench
  Thoughts about a post-3.1 world Dean Roddey 10 4,100 01-20-2010, 02:49 PM
Last Post: Dean Roddey

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)