I have been dabbling - self taught - in the KNX conversion of my house and have been using linknx for a few weeks. It's a steep learning curve (all great tools seem to have one).
What I am after is a setup which I do not currently see an elegant way to do things with linknx. I hope running it past the experts here, somebody will be able to point out to me what I'm doing wrong.
So my KNX installation runs the lights, shutters, and heating, including hot water generation. I was thinking of implementing house 'statuses' that should make the different systems in a specified way. These statuses are for example 'sleep' or 'away' for what the residents are doing, but as well day/night for what the sun does (and I was thinking about rainy/sunny as well).
Currently each status is on a GA, and when that one triggers, there's a rule triggering the different events - changing the temperatures, moving the shutters, etc. The statuses may trigger time based, or by KNX presence detector, or by a simple KNX switch.
Obviously some actions will depend on multiple statuses: for example I do not require hot water when asleep, neither when absent. So when the timer based 'sleep/awake' status change triggers in the morning, before turning up the water heater, it will first have to check if the 'absent' status is active (because I may have spent the night out of house), and based on that it'll have to decide on the hot water.
I can see doing that with conditions and sub-conditions, but I realise that with only a few of these modes, I end up having a huge number of conditions and their variations. Changes will have to be repeated several times throughout the config. It all starts looking rather ugly, and hard to maintain.
Am I doing it wrong? Or is this an area where things are just ugly? I was hoping for a somewhat simplish 'matrix', where combinations can be defined, that would be triggered on every status change, but I can't see anything like that. That's why I'm thinking my approach must be wrong :-)
Any comments?
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Hello -
I have been dabbling - self taught - in the KNX conversion of my house and have been using linknx for a few weeks. It's a steep learning curve (all great tools seem to have one).
What I am after is a setup which I do not currently see an elegant way to do things with linknx. I hope running it past the experts here, somebody will be able to point out to me what I'm doing wrong.
So my KNX installation runs the lights, shutters, and heating, including hot water generation. I was thinking of implementing house 'statuses' that should make the different systems in a specified way. These statuses are for example 'sleep' or 'away' for what the residents are doing, but as well day/night for what the sun does (and I was thinking about rainy/sunny as well).
Currently each status is on a GA, and when that one triggers, there's a rule triggering the different events - changing the temperatures, moving the shutters, etc. The statuses may trigger time based, or by KNX presence detector, or by a simple KNX switch.
Obviously some actions will depend on multiple statuses: for example I do not require hot water when asleep, neither when absent. So when the timer based 'sleep/awake' status change triggers in the morning, before turning up the water heater, it will first have to check if the 'absent' status is active (because I may have spent the night out of house), and based on that it'll have to decide on the hot water.
I can see doing that with conditions and sub-conditions, but I realise that with only a few of these modes, I end up having a huge number of conditions and their variations. Changes will have to be repeated several times throughout the config. It all starts looking rather ugly, and hard to maintain.
Am I doing it wrong? Or is this an area where things are just ugly? I was hoping for a somewhat simplish 'matrix', where combinations can be defined, that would be triggered on every status change, but I can't see anything like that. That's why I'm thinking my approach must be wrong :-)
Any comments?