But maybe it's just me? The companies I've worked for have required 99.99% functionality from technology "out of the box" and I know it's very attainable with standard off the shelf components and not with an open check book.
Here's another point I'd like to make. If people just "kobble" their systems together and don't complain or "rant" or use "negative comments about the technology" then the manufacturer never gets solid (clean your act up) feed back even if in form of frustration. If there's no pressure to do something to fix it what's the use, what's the purpose, why try. Are you satisfied with the same technology from 30 years ago when it would only take a 5% change to get it up to date.
Kobble Kobble
I thought the forum was trolled because you essentially “stirred the pot” and then left. But you are back, so my assumption of being trolled was wrong.
You are not understanding X10. The protocol, the devices, or the company.
X10’s market platform is to sell by being the least expensive. Period. And I think the philosophy starts at the design stage and propagates from there. They know they have old technology. They know there is no way to increase the communications reliability and at the same time “keep the technology”. They are very limited with what they can do and remain a PLC product. But there are workarounds that bring communications reliability to high levels. In your words: “Get out the checkbook”. Although you blow the costs to improve the reliability out of proportions.
I think Noam explained it really well, X10 powerline control (PLC) technology fails because the communications medium (the homes internal powerlines ) has become hostile to the PLC signal. Updating or adapting new protocol will not solve the problem. X10 Inc, and other companies like ACT and JV Digital Engineering has done about everything they can do to reduce the communications medium hostility. But X10 Inc does a lousy job of making you aware of the limitations. They let this forum do it for them which, to me, is understandable. After all I have not seen car brochures stating the vehicle is subject to breakdowns, flat tires, car wrecks, etc. X10 does dance around the subject in their feeble user instructions. (Yes, I do have issues with X10). But the axiom of “you get what you pay for” has to be applied here. As I said in earlier post. It is not the junk you imply it is. But it isn’t Z-Wave either.
Your problem, is evidenced in your statement: “But maybe it's just me? The companies I've worked for have required 99.99% functionality from technology "out of the box".
Sure, but what is the cost of that equipment? Are you buying the cheapest on the market?? Because with X10, you are. Now that isn’t bad, as long as you understand, it is the cheapest and the oldest. You can’t expect Mercedes quality and performance when you are buying a Yugo.
You are trying to apply Six Sigma, and premium equipment standards to a five dollar product.
I think X10 has software issues, but since I abandoned AHP after a year of use, I will not try and defend it. I think it better than it used to be but is still problematic. Same is true of X10 cameras which gets a lot of forum complaints, although a large percentage of those complaints are created because the new user does not read the instructions.
Finally your “knowledgeable” statement of: “Are you satisfied with the same technology from 30 years ago when it would only take a 5% change to get it up to date.” Is humorous. Thank you for putting a smile on my face.
Since you are expecting high communications reliability without having to "massage the system" by adding repeaters, filters, etc. I suggest you forget about X10 and investigate Z-Wave.
