Home AMXForums Archive Threads Residential Forum

control system with NO tp?

2»

Comments

  • yuriyuri Junior Member Posts: 861
    DHawthorne wrote:
    There's no compelling reason AMX can't charge for any no-panel solution, be it flash-based or a licensing key to unlock something served by the master. The point is, many customers balk at several thousands of dollars for a touch panel, when they would willingly pay a few hundred. There are always clear advantages to a hardware device, so I don't think that portion of the market is put at risk; what it comes down to instead is a smaller sale vs. no sale at all. It's in their interests to provide that "smaller sale" solution, or we are going to come up with something ourselves that will equate to the "no sale" option for AMX. And those without the resources to create their own solution are just going to go with C instead.

    good point!
    Might it be an idea to have some sort of combined effort in creating such a solution?
    I think many of us are willing to deliver some help :)
  • sethollesetholle Junior Member Posts: 66
    G3 Web control

    You can do multiple instances of the same web control panel. I have it working with 8 with no problems. You do have to modify the html file and back an array of the pages for it to work. Then define the virtual web panel as 1-8 dependingo on what device name you are using.
    This is very reliable. I have had many running for years with no problem. As long as your code is stable you should have no problem.
  • IC-STL-JBIC-STL-JB Junior Member Posts: 21
    It seems there was a pretty intense update to the G3 web control in the form of an update to TPD3 at the end of Feb that addresses a lot of the Java issues and quirks. From what tech said, this update was amost exclusively to address webcontrol page issues. Should be much more reliable now, at least according to tech support. However, and this is a BIG however, make sure you allocate a lot more memory when using the Duet enabled firmware. I had to ramp mine up to get the pages to happily open. Otherwise they'd error out.

    As far as a G4 solution, I'm definitely with a lot of you guys when I say that I've lost more than a few sales to Elan and some of the cheaper companies because of the TP cost. I think AMX is going to be forced to come up with a viable proprietary touchpaneless software solution with the new Vista and XPMCE stuff popping up left and right (and GASP...getting considerably more reliable and robust). I know the hardware has clearly been a huge investment for them, but like someone mentioned earlier- do you lose the entire sale or a portion of it? P.U...this is gonna get ugly quick.

    Breeze
  • Thomas HayesThomas Hayes Junior Member Posts: 1,164
    IC-STL-JB wrote:
    As far as a G4 solution, I'm definitely with a lot of you guys when I say that I've lost more than a few sales to Elan and some of the cheaper companies because of the TP cost. I think AMX is going to be forced to come up with a viable proprietary touchpaneless software solution with the new Vista and XPMCE stuff popping up left and right (and GASP...getting considerably more reliable and robust). I know the hardware has clearly been a huge investment for them, but like someone mentioned earlier- do you lose the entire sale or a portion of it? P.U...this is gonna get ugly quick.

    Breeze

    The biggest complaint I hear is the cost of the TP's. Hard to justify a panel that cost more than my car did. P.S. I live in Canada so add a lot to whatever they cost in the USA.
  • NMarkRobertsNMarkRoberts Junior Member Posts: 455
    IC-STL-JB wrote:
    It seems there was a pretty intense update to the G3 web control in the form of an update to TPD3 at the end of Feb that addresses a lot of the Java issues and quirks. ... Should be much more reliable now

    I just went and looked and it isn't there - ?
  • Daniel TehanDaniel Tehan Junior Member Posts: 42
    Less Powerfull model of TPI/4?

    I think it would be nice to see a version of the TPI/4 that was run on the graphics engine of one of the smaller panels. As the TPI/4 is really not a solution if cost is what is keeping you from getting a panel. I would think they could put the electronics for a CV5 in a box without the LCD, creating basically a web page server for a lower resolution than the existing TPI/4, since you really don't need a web page that fills the whole screen of the computer. 800x600 would be plenty, maybe even less for smaller applications.

    Who knows, maybe in the future a version of the Netlinx master with that built in? Or maybe an expansion card?
  • IC-STL-JBIC-STL-JB Junior Member Posts: 21
    CV5 Engine
    I think it would be nice to see a version of the TPI/4 that was run on the graphics engine of one of the smaller panels. As the TPI/4 is really not a solution if cost is what is keeping you from getting a panel. I would think they could put the electronics for a CV5 in a box without the LCD, creating basically a web page server for a lower resolution than the existing TPI/4, since you really don't need a web page that fills the whole screen of the computer. 800x600 would be plenty, maybe even less for smaller applications.

    Who knows, maybe in the future a version of the Netlinx master with that built in? Or maybe an expansion card?
    I think that is a FANTASTIC idea that you would think would be quite viable...

    Hmmm...funny, I don't see that update either. I still see the existing one for build 199 to 200. Confusing...
  • sethollesetholle Junior Member Posts: 66
    g3 control

    Actually you can run as many linked panels as you like. Just change the device range in the html file, then create for instant 8 devices 10001-10008. LInk them to a virtual device such as 33000, you can reliably use this. ON the online event of any of the pages then it will link the feedback to gether. I run three huge television and video control centers with this method, and it is very very reliable. You have to write clean code and clean feedback, use timelines instead of define program. Right redunancy into your code to protect buttton pushes. But that is normal stuff. Had this running for over 5 years with very few problems. Of course it is better to have real panels, but actually for remote control of many functions. G3 web control is a wonderful backup. I am required to do this even in cases where I have a touch panel, because 100 percent uptime is required. So even with a touch panel failure the control room can work using a computer.
    This can be used also for remote administration. Just link your real touch panel and virtual. When you have 1000's of people waiting a tp failure is not an option.
    This works very well.
  • TorbidoniTorbidoni Junior Member Posts: 20
    Question

    Why do you need to link them to a virtual device? What are the advantages?
    Do you mean : TP1[]={33001:1:1,realTP1,WebTP1} TP2[]={33002:1:1,realTP2,WebTP2} ?

    Thanks in advance,
    Fabrizio.
    setholle wrote:
    Actually you can run as many linked panels as you like. Just change the device range in the html file, then create for instant 8 devices 10001-10008. LInk them to a virtual device such as 33000, you can reliably use this. ON the online event of any of the pages then it will link the feedback to gether. I run three huge television and video control centers with this method, and it is very very reliable. You have to write clean code and clean feedback, use timelines instead of define program. Right redunancy into your code to protect buttton pushes. But that is normal stuff. Had this running for over 5 years with very few problems. Of course it is better to have real panels, but actually for remote control of many functions. G3 web control is a wonderful backup. I am required to do this even in cases where I have a touch panel, because 100 percent uptime is required. So even with a touch panel failure the control room can work using a computer.
    This can be used also for remote administration. Just link your real touch panel and virtual. When you have 1000's of people waiting a tp failure is not an option.
    This works very well.
  • ericmedleyericmedley Senior Member - 4000+ posts Posts: 4,177
    Torbidoni wrote:
    Why do you need to link them to a virtual device? What are the advantages?
    Do you mean : TP1[]={33001:1:1,realTP1,WebTP1} TP2[]={33002:1:1,realTP2,WebTP2} ?

    Thanks in advance,
    Fabrizio.

    There are many advantages. The most obvious is that a virtual device will never go 'offline' So, if one real TP goes away, you don't loose the functionality of the others.


    I actually tend to use DEVs instead of combining them. that way they are only linked when I want them to be.
Sign In or Register to comment.