Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[TerranJerry]

I have discovered that if you have a DS10A that is selected in a macro and you do not realize this is the case and you delete the DS10A but leave the macro present, the AHP software will abort/crash after you empty the trash can and attempt to save your configuration.

To make matters worse, whenever you try to restart the program, it will continue to abort/crash.
The only fix I have found once this occurs is to delete the entire *.AHX file and start over with a new configuration!

This is occurring with version 3.236 of AHP and can be reliably reproduced. 
To do so, do the following but SAVE a copy of your *.AHX file FIRST!!!!:

1) Add a DS10A but not as part of a security console
2) Add a macro that uses a "sensor state" condition and assign the new DS10A as the module and let it default to detect 'open' state.
3) Save your changes (File-Save)
4) Now - drag the DS10A to the waste basket and confirm that you wish to delete it
5) Clear the waste basket
6) Now again save your changes.

- The program will abort.  When you try to restart it, it will abort again with each attempt.

This needs to be fixed.  A work-around is to look for any macros using a sensor before you delete it but that may be difficult in larger systems.
Jerry

[Dan Lawrence]

3.236 is a known buggy version of AHP.  If you don't have any add-ons, you can downgrade to a stable version.  In  your case, the simplest thing is delete the entire macro ( and empty the trash can as soon as you delete it).   Save your .ahx file and close AHP.  Re open AHP and create a new macro with the DS10 in it.  That should solve the abort/crash problem.  If it continues, come back here and let us know.

[TerranJerry]

Thanks for the tip Dan.  Unfortunately I have all the plug-ins.  I purchased the AHP that comes with all the plug-ins (including MyHouse, iWatchout, Smart Macros, On-Alert, etc) and I am trying to get DS10A modules to work with the AHP software and the CM15A to provide a means to trigger a macro whenever one of the DS10A's change state.

So far I've not been able to figure out how to do this.  Apparently with what I have purchased ( described above ) there does not seem to be a way to ARM the AHP software itself to use the security options (in On-Alert) unless I purchase some kind of security console.  I was not aware of this when I purchased the items above.  Even trying the case where I install the DS10A and say that it is NOT part of a security console, I am still not able to get the macro to run in response to a DS10A state change.

If you know any way to resolve any of those issues, your guidance would be MOST appreciated.  My other posting on this issue has not received any working solutions thus far.

Thanks again for your response.

[dave w]

OK stupid question for the "OnAlert" users...do you need a Security Remote to arm OnAlert?

[TerranJerry]

Actually - I don't believe that to be a stupid question at all.  I've been asking the same question and looking through the forums for 2 days and still don't know the correct answer to that.  Thanks Dave.  I hope someone can tell us from X10 how this is "supposed" to work.

Jerry

[dave w]

Actually - I don't believe that to be a stupid question at all.  I've been asking the same question and looking through the forums for 2 days and still don't know the correct answer to that.  Thanks Dave.  I hope someone can tell us from X10 how this is "supposed" to work.

Jerry

Jerry, you might be one of the few users who is using OnAlert without the DS7000 console. Usually if any of the regular forum readers know the answer, they are quick to respond.

Since the DS10 transmits a security code which does not mean anything to AHP unless you have the OnAlert add-in, I suspect OnAlert may want to see a similar coded RF signal to arm.

[TerranJerry]

That is certainly a logical assumption Dave and the fact that On-Alert has understanding of these security codes but AHP does not, was something of which I was unaware.  That might indeed explain it.  However, with software, I feel there is never a reason to leave the user hanging with a feature he can't activate.  So, if indeed only On-Alert understands the security codes, then On-Alert (as a plug-in to AHP) should have a menu option to arm/disarm in my not so humble opinion.

I don't believe that a user should have to buy a security console just to activate a collection of DS10A's that are being used to monitor various things (perhaps not windows and doors).

Thanks again Dave.  You are very kind to respond and I surely appreciate your shared expertise.

I must say I am very disappointed with the overall quality of the software associated with AHP.  I am still mulling over the 30 day money back guarantee because of this.  I find the program crashes a lot (both when I am using it and spontaneously).  It has a nice look but if it doesn't work reliably or do what I need it to do, then perhaps it's not a good solution. 
I'm still hoping to make a go of it but I'm not willing to install a system that isn't stable or reliable.  Seems the software I have received is still on the bleeding edge since other users point out that 3.236 is buggy.  Alas....

Thanks again - Jerry

[dave w]

I must say I am very disappointed with the overall quality of the software associated with AHP.  I am still mulling over the 30 day money back guarantee because of this.  I find the program crashes a lot (both when I am using it and spontaneously).  It has a nice look but if it doesn't work reliably or do what I need it to do, then perhaps it's not a good solution. 

$0.02

X10 software is not the pinnacle of quality. I abandoned AHP back in 2005 because of problems.

FWIW I use "Homeseer" with an ACT TI103 interface, and use a CM15A only as a multi housecode transceiver. Homeseer is costly compared to AHP but rock solid, although now Homeseer is marketed towards Z-Wave rather than X10. I do not believe Homeseer "talks" DS10 but will check if you are curious. Also Homeseer can also use the CM15A, CM11A, Smarthome 1132CU as X10 PLC interface.

[TerranJerry]

You know, I'd have to say I find it interesting (and telling) that a problem such as this which can be reproduced with such ease and was reported 3 days ago has not at least received some kind of reply from the X10 support team to say "we will look into this" or "we will fix this"....   

I hope it's just they are busy and I know they have a lot of people hammering on them but this type of thing is easily reproduced and should be easily fixed.  I write code for a living for switches and routers and they are complex and I know that a program crash that can be reliably reproduced should be easily stack traced to figure out why it is causing an exception.

Obviously the scenario is not one that requires a fix in terms of making the macro work again since the sensor was deleted (cockpit error by the user) but since it is easy for this to happen on a large system, it should not be un-resolved since this prevents you from successfully starting the program again unless you nuke your database or unless you are knowledeable enough of the internals of the database to edit out the offending part.

X10 support - I hope you plan to correct this.  Please at least open a problem report for it.  It is easy to reproduce.

Your customer,
Jerry

[pconroy]

Jerry,

I share your support but here's what's rattling around in my head:

Since The Home Automation Market hasn't exploded as much as X-10 had hoped for, desired or >>planned<<...
They've been forced to revisit their business model.
They 're looking at where the revenue's coming and and where their expenses are.
Right now - they're probably thinking they're continuing to make more money by simply getting new customers and aren't too concerned about retaining the old ones.

Some percentage of X10 users are satisfied with the system out of the box.
Another percentage become satisfied after some tinkering.
Some other percentage are dissatisfied and just shelf it and move on.

I'd venture only a very small percentage of us are trying relentlessly to make it work, or have more intricate setup.
When we complain, we simply don't register on their balance sheet right now.


And finally, if I were X-10 I'd be keeping an eye on the competitors - the ones with more reliable systems.
If they're not taking the market by storm - then that would tell me there's not much money to be made in really re-engineering things.



All that cold-hard-economics aside - I'd like to think I have enough *ethics* to not release buggy software, to not listen to disgruntled customers.

I think they've got some market segments that they've ignored that would benefit from an X-10 product set.



but what do I know?
 

[TerranJerry]

Good thoughts there pconroy.  Thanks for sharing. 

Of course none of these points of view would anyone get from their "sales-side" web first-view of the product.  It is very positive, self-promoting and encouraging.  I purchased my equipment/software based upon the seemingly iron-clad guarantee that their stuff worked, worked well and that they supported it.  However, (and sadly) I have somewhat already come to the viewpoint over the short time I have been working with the system that as you pointed out, they are putting more focus on sales and less on providing a reliable working product.

They would be well to consider allowing some portion of talented users of their equipment to have access to source code.   A working community is what has advanced Linux so quickly and improved the quality so markedly.  I realize they sell their software so perhaps some type of NDA is called for from those who choose to assist with debugging in such a community but they would be smart to consider some of these resources to improve the quality of their product if they are unwilling to invest in a level of support that assures timely and proper responses to their users.  It will do them no good in the long run to just let the users flounder about on their own trying to resolve issues for which they do not have access to the proper code.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this.  I'm still trying to decide which camp I will fall into.  At the moment, it doesn't seem too good for the long hall but a good positive user community providing support (such as you have here) can really make a difference in whether or not people stay with something - even when buggy! 

Thanks again,

Jerry

[pconroy]

I agree - their unwillingness to open up their APIs, their interface specs, toss their software into the public domain, indicates to me that "they just don't get it!"

Just like Rupert Murdoch ranting about Google "stealing" his paper's content. Or Senator Stevens talking about internet "pipes"... 

In my years on the planet, when a company starts to focus only on "new sales, new revenue" and "d*mn the existing installed base" - they're on their last legs.  That's an old ploy institutionalized by the dot.com's.

Even companies like Sun, and IBM have realized that what they once thought was their "secret sauce" wasn't all that secret.  Doing things in the open can drive customers to your door.

[TerranJerry]

Very true.  And indeed, anyone that has used the latest AHP software (as I am attempting to do) can surely tell that the product needs help.  It is notoriously unstable and unreliable and there are many gifted programmers out there in the public domain who could definitely contribute to improving the quality of a product that is just begging for improvements so that it can sell, sell, sell.  In principal, the X10 system is a fantastic thing.  They just need to spend some quality time improving it for their customers who are buying the product still so that we will continue to buy and expand.  It is a sad thing for someone not to understand their market properly and capitalize on it by providing good support as well as strong sales support.  It takes more than sales to really max out your profits - you have to encourage additional purchases with a product that warrants such.  Oddly enough during all my lambastes and pleas for help on here, not once has an X10 support person lumbered along to offer some tips/help/assurances about fixes or anything else.  Sad....

I'm wondering if I could drop my AHP version back a rev to a more stable release without adversely affecting all my plug-in software add-ons.  I think I pretty well have them all (On-Alert, MyHouse, etc) and I don't want them to stop working but I'd surely enjoy having an AHP version that was more stable/reliable.  I currently have the latest version running (well most of the time).

What do you think of that idea and do you know if this is possible to roll back AHP without disabling the plug-ins?

Thanks again pconroy!

Jerry

[Dan Lawrence]

You can probably drop back to 3.204/3.288 without affecting the plug-ins.  Look at http://software.x10.com/pub/applications/activehome/  and look for /ahp_updt_204.exe.  Save that and apply it over AHP 3.236.  When the install is complete, open AHP and use the Check for Update under Tools to update to 3.228.   Once 3.228 is applied, make sure all your plug-ins work as installed.

[MichaelHlubb]

I had just done this yesterday, the instructions are in the Plug-ins, but as I've just 'downgraded' to 204 and can't get it to update to 228 I'm a bit stuck with looking at what I do. SO... this is from Memory......

to use the DS-10A I had to first add them, I unchecked the box asking about the security center, and pressed the button(s) on the DS-10A to get it to link to the AHP (236 at that time) this part was a no brainer, as it's close to adding any other module to the system. Then the harder part, not in doing it, but where to do it. Start a new macro after getting a security module to configure (be seen by) in The AHP. and the Tigger part becomes a button (from plain text, easy to miss) click that buttom to change the marco to trigger on security. it'll ask if you want a delayed trigger, (normal) trigger and closed (reset) .  after that it's normal macro stuff again.

Hope that helps!

I may just go back to 236 just to get  it to work again. Right now it's not showing in 204, and I can't get the system to update to 228.


edited: After returning to 236, I took a closer look at where the instructions for using a security module in a macro. It is under plug-ins, On-alert, Help, the help that is above About. if you click and open the on-alert plugin so you're looking at a windos showing a house floorplan with security modules in green and red, clicking on the help there with take you to a different help screen and shows nothing about on-alert. It just adds to the confusion.