That?s nice. Prices on eBay just went up 200% ?

I?ve got two of them in permanent use at home and i?ll give it a try.

?

Cheers,

Thorsten

?

?

Hello all,

Just a quick heads up regarding the repurposing of older hardware.
Like many others, we are trying to make temporary use of old 3-series hardware to get by until product arrives.
Because of this, I've done some testing on the TSR-302 handheld remotes.

I can confirm that, like the TST-902 and TST-602 wireless touch panels, the TSR-302 can be placed into Wi-Fi only mode to negate the need for an EX/ER gateway.
We have a bunch of 302s and RMC3s laying around, and I'm happy to say that I can use the 302s in Wi-Fi mode because we can't get any gateways.

Here's what I did to get it working:

• Toolbox Console to TSR-302
• ERENABLE OFF
• WOWENABLE ON
• ADDM <IP ID> <Processor IP>
• REBOOT
• Then, I added a TSR-302 xPanel version to my program and connected the SG logic.

So far, everything is working perfectly.
The last thing to test is the Wi-Fi connection times from sleep and standby.

Sigh of relief!
Brian

Ha, right – forgot the time a little bit. At that time, I was in enterprise IT and VPNs were pretty common already.

But for sure not in residential installs, true.

?

Cheers,

Thorsten

?

?

Ha!? It was 2006.? VPN to a client’s house was a bit more challenging at that time.? Much of the software I was using worked better from a local machine as well.? The setup also allowed me, as the programmer, to work with a non-programming resource on-site if a code change was needed.? I think I used Goto MY PC or something like that.

?

Its much easier these days.

?

Best,

?

Noah

?

While i agree in general with your position (as said before), I don?t exactly understand this piece:

“I began to eliminate those trips in 2006 by installing computers in the equipment rack with remote access.? The client would call and I would connect to pull logs and reset their system.?”

?

Why would a computer be required for this?

You can do exactly the same with a hardware-processor based system. Just dial in via VPN and then you can do whatever you want. If the gear is connected to a PDU, you can even hard-boot the devices if required.

I?ve even done (though smaller) systems completely remote. Send the client the hardware, let him hook it up and then push the program to it.

?

For me, VC4 just gives you another option to run Crestron programs with a lot of flexibility. I love that. I?ve got some clients who have a virtualization host running anyway in their home and then you just add another VM for the home automation system.

But I also like to have a hardware processor with additional ports for sensors, RS232, IR to directly connect components that are not IP-only.

?

So for me it?s not the one or the other, but the one and the other.

?

Cheers,

Thorsten

?

?

?

Hi Chris,

?

I certainly see your point of view, but the old resi market has been invaded by server-based solutions ever since Amazon Alexa, Smart TVs, Phillips, Samsung Hubs, etc. entered the picture.? What I’m proposing is we as an industry explore that same model instead of remaining embedded in the same old excuses.? I feel we passed “change for change sake” many years ago and now sit on the front porch mumbling “I remember when…”.

?

I do understand though.? I’m in commercial now because of so many years working on the bleeding edge of resi AV.? I’ve spent way too many Friday and Saturday nights at client’s homes because the lighting system or theater (or Jandy pool control)? decided to stop working.? I began to eliminate those trips in 2006 by installing computers in the equipment rack with remote access.? The client would call and I would connect to pull logs and reset their system.?

?

I’ve successfully deployed this model in global corporate environments with great success.? Lee was actually a huge part of that effort.?

?

VC-4 gives us these same abilities and creates opportunity for residual revenue, which in my mind is a win-win.? Well… almost.? As I noted before, they need to fix some things first.?

?

Someone with more knowledge please weigh in.? With a headless Linux server there is not much difference in maintenance as its essentially the same OS and code running on a CP4.? Just different hardware.? Right??

?

-Noah

?

?

"What I’m reading here seems to be mostly fear of change.?"
Not really fear of change, except for changes that render financial and/or time losses and client dissatisfaction...
We have been in a world for 10+ years now (the proverbial Digital age) that although has many wonderful things to offer, also has a zeitgeist for some based on 'change for change's sake, new and shiny is better', often marketing/sales driven that creates changes faster than humans can keep up with.?

I actually like the idea of VC4, but I think there's a potential for a learning curve (death by 1000 cuts) that will be expensive from a time, project deployment and client satisfaction prospective.
Project goals and requirements have not really changed much in the last 20-30 years, at least in the Resi space, just the way we're required to deploy them...

Concerning Internet connection:
In the Resi space, 99.9% of all projects I've been involved with have continuous connectivity (or a Net admin that can manage this). Obviously not so simple in the Commercial space...
I really don't love the whole license thing (though I understand it completely) for any feature, cause if you have to replace a processor or Dell PC on a Saturday morning, this can be a total pain...
Does anyone know if VC4 using the hardware ID for the license, like most/all if the other processor licensing schemes seem to? or is it just within the program/config that would be 'Transferable??

And +1:
Anyone on my side with a petition for free developer VC4-licenses???

Hahaha!? Yes.? Those were certainly the days.? I was working on AMX systems back then in homes larger than some of the commercial spaces I work on.? Lutron Homeworks required its own software as well.? That computer came in really handy for lighting control.? We would get calls to adjust presets and do it remotely.? I think the system that gave me the most trouble was the HVAC through those AprilAir controllers.? I eventually started wiring the power through relays on the AMX processor so I could reboot individual controllers.? One house had 13-zones of HVAC.? Insane.

?

Not gonna lie though… those were truly good times. (*rocking on my porch*)

?

Ha!? It was 2006.? VPN to a client’s house was a bit more challenging at that time.? Much of the software I was using worked better from a local machine as well.? The setup also allowed me, as the programmer, to work with a non-programming resource on-site if a code change was needed.? I think I used Goto MY PC or something like that.

?

Its much easier these days.

?

Best,

?

Noah

?

While i agree in general with your position (as said before), I don?t exactly understand this piece:

“I began to eliminate those trips in 2006 by installing computers in the equipment rack with remote access.? The client would call and I would connect to pull logs and reset their system.?”

?

Why would a computer be required for this?

You can do exactly the same with a hardware-processor based system. Just dial in via VPN and then you can do whatever you want. If the gear is connected to a PDU, you can even hard-boot the devices if required.

I?ve even done (though smaller) systems completely remote. Send the client the hardware, let him hook it up and then push the program to it.

?

For me, VC4 just gives you another option to run Crestron programs with a lot of flexibility. I love that. I?ve got some clients who have a virtualization host running anyway in their home and then you just add another VM for the home automation system.

But I also like to have a hardware processor with additional ports for sensors, RS232, IR to directly connect components that are not IP-only.

?

So for me it?s not the one or the other, but the one and the other.

?

Cheers,

Thorsten

?

?

?

Hi Chris,

?

I certainly see your point of view, but the old resi market has been invaded by server-based solutions ever since Amazon Alexa, Smart TVs, Phillips, Samsung Hubs, etc. entered the picture.? What I’m proposing is we as an industry explore that same model instead of remaining embedded in the same old excuses.? I feel we passed “change for change sake” many years ago and now sit on the front porch mumbling “I remember when…”.

?

I do understand though.? I’m in commercial now because of so many years working on the bleeding edge of resi AV.? I’ve spent way too many Friday and Saturday nights at client’s homes because the lighting system or theater (or Jandy pool control)? decided to stop working.? I began to eliminate those trips in 2006 by installing computers in the equipment rack with remote access.? The client would call and I would connect to pull logs and reset their system.?

?

I’ve successfully deployed this model in global corporate environments with great success.? Lee was actually a huge part of that effort.?

?

VC-4 gives us these same abilities and creates opportunity for residual revenue, which in my mind is a win-win.? Well… almost.? As I noted before, they need to fix some things first.?

?

Someone with more knowledge please weigh in.? With a headless Linux server there is not much difference in maintenance as its essentially the same OS and code running on a CP4.? Just different hardware.? Right??

?

-Noah

?

?

"What I’m reading here seems to be mostly fear of change.?"
Not really fear of change, except for changes that render financial and/or time losses and client dissatisfaction...
We have been in a world for 10+ years now (the proverbial Digital age) that although has many wonderful things to offer, also has a zeitgeist for some based on 'change for change's sake, new and shiny is better', often marketing/sales driven that creates changes faster than humans can keep up with.?

I actually like the idea of VC4, but I think there's a potential for a learning curve (death by 1000 cuts) that will be expensive from a time, project deployment and client satisfaction prospective.
Project goals and requirements have not really changed much in the last 20-30 years, at least in the Resi space, just the way we're required to deploy them...

Concerning Internet connection:
In the Resi space, 99.9% of all projects I've been involved with have continuous connectivity (or a Net admin that can manage this). Obviously not so simple in the Commercial space...
I really don't love the whole license thing (though I understand it completely) for any feature, cause if you have to replace a processor or Dell PC on a Saturday morning, this can be a total pain...
Does anyone know if VC4 using the hardware ID for the license, like most/all if the other processor licensing schemes seem to? or is it just within the program/config that would be 'Transferable??

And +1:
Anyone on my side with a petition for free developer VC4-licenses???

While i agree in general with your position (as said before), I don?t exactly understand this piece:

“I began to eliminate those trips in 2006 by installing computers in the equipment rack with remote access.? The client would call and I would connect to pull logs and reset their system.?”

?

Why would a computer be required for this?

You can do exactly the same with a hardware-processor based system. Just dial in via VPN and then you can do whatever you want. If the gear is connected to a PDU, you can even hard-boot the devices if required.

I?ve even done (though smaller) systems completely remote. Send the client the hardware, let him hook it up and then push the program to it.

?

For me, VC4 just gives you another option to run Crestron programs with a lot of flexibility. I love that. I?ve got some clients who have a virtualization host running anyway in their home and then you just add another VM for the home automation system.

But I also like to have a hardware processor with additional ports for sensors, RS232, IR to directly connect components that are not IP-only.

?

So for me it?s not the one or the other, but the one and the other.

?

Cheers,

Thorsten

?

?

?

Hi Chris,

?

I certainly see your point of view, but the old resi market has been invaded by server-based solutions ever since Amazon Alexa, Smart TVs, Phillips, Samsung Hubs, etc. entered the picture.? What I’m proposing is we as an industry explore that same model instead of remaining embedded in the same old excuses.? I feel we passed “change for change sake” many years ago and now sit on the front porch mumbling “I remember when…”.

?

I do understand though.? I’m in commercial now because of so many years working on the bleeding edge of resi AV.? I’ve spent way too many Friday and Saturday nights at client’s homes because the lighting system or theater (or Jandy pool control)? decided to stop working.? I began to eliminate those trips in 2006 by installing computers in the equipment rack with remote access.? The client would call and I would connect to pull logs and reset their system.?

?

I’ve successfully deployed this model in global corporate environments with great success.? Lee was actually a huge part of that effort.?

?

VC-4 gives us these same abilities and creates opportunity for residual revenue, which in my mind is a win-win.? Well… almost.? As I noted before, they need to fix some things first.?

?

Someone with more knowledge please weigh in.? With a headless Linux server there is not much difference in maintenance as its essentially the same OS and code running on a CP4.? Just different hardware.? Right??

?

-Noah

?

?

"What I’m reading here seems to be mostly fear of change.?"
Not really fear of change, except for changes that render financial and/or time losses and client dissatisfaction...
We have been in a world for 10+ years now (the proverbial Digital age) that although has many wonderful things to offer, also has a zeitgeist for some based on 'change for change's sake, new and shiny is better', often marketing/sales driven that creates changes faster than humans can keep up with.?

I actually like the idea of VC4, but I think there's a potential for a learning curve (death by 1000 cuts) that will be expensive from a time, project deployment and client satisfaction prospective.
Project goals and requirements have not really changed much in the last 20-30 years, at least in the Resi space, just the way we're required to deploy them...

Concerning Internet connection:
In the Resi space, 99.9% of all projects I've been involved with have continuous connectivity (or a Net admin that can manage this). Obviously not so simple in the Commercial space...
I really don't love the whole license thing (though I understand it completely) for any feature, cause if you have to replace a processor or Dell PC on a Saturday morning, this can be a total pain...
Does anyone know if VC4 using the hardware ID for the license, like most/all if the other processor licensing schemes seem to? or is it just within the program/config that would be 'Transferable??

And +1:
Anyone on my side with a petition for free developer VC4-licenses???

Hi Chris,

?

I certainly see your point of view, but the old resi market has been invaded by server-based solutions ever since Amazon Alexa, Smart TVs, Phillips, Samsung Hubs, etc. entered the picture.? What I’m proposing is we as an industry explore that same model instead of remaining embedded in the same old excuses.? I feel we passed “change for change sake” many years ago and now sit on the front porch mumbling “I remember when…”.

?

I do understand though.? I’m in commercial now because of so many years working on the bleeding edge of resi AV.? I’ve spent way too many Friday and Saturday nights at client’s homes because the lighting system or theater (or Jandy pool control)? decided to stop working.? I began to eliminate those trips in 2006 by installing computers in the equipment rack with remote access.? The client would call and I would connect to pull logs and reset their system.?

?

I’ve successfully deployed this model in global corporate environments with great success.? Lee was actually a huge part of that effort.?

?

VC-4 gives us these same abilities and creates opportunity for residual revenue, which in my mind is a win-win.? Well… almost.? As I noted before, they need to fix some things first.?

?

Someone with more knowledge please weigh in.? With a headless Linux server there is not much difference in maintenance as its essentially the same OS and code running on a CP4.? Just different hardware.? Right??

?

-Noah

?

?

"What I’m reading here seems to be mostly fear of change.?"
Not really fear of change, except for changes that render financial and/or time losses and client dissatisfaction...
We have been in a world for 10+ years now (the proverbial Digital age) that although has many wonderful things to offer, also has a zeitgeist for some based on 'change for change's sake, new and shiny is better', often marketing/sales driven that creates changes faster than humans can keep up with.?

I actually like the idea of VC4, but I think there's a potential for a learning curve (death by 1000 cuts) that will be expensive from a time, project deployment and client satisfaction prospective.
Project goals and requirements have not really changed much in the last 20-30 years, at least in the Resi space, just the way we're required to deploy them...

Concerning Internet connection:
In the Resi space, 99.9% of all projects I've been involved with have continuous connectivity (or a Net admin that can manage this). Obviously not so simple in the Commercial space...
I really don't love the whole license thing (though I understand it completely) for any feature, cause if you have to replace a processor or Dell PC on a Saturday morning, this can be a total pain...
Does anyone know if VC4 using the hardware ID for the license, like most/all if the other processor licensing schemes seem to? or is it just within the program/config that would be 'Transferable??

And +1:
Anyone on my side with a petition for free developer VC4-licenses???

Yes!!!? Great idea Thorsten!

?

I?m with Noah,

decoupling the ?Crestron-OS“ from the hardware adds options instead of limiting (at least as long as Crestron continues to deliver hardware processor as well).

Many modern automation systems were developed as a software right from the beginning.

?

However, i?ve got an IT-background, so that makes things easier I guess.

?

And I also agree that there are issues (mentioned by Noah and others) that need to be addressed, but i?m confident they will.

?

Anyone on my side with a petition for free developer VC4-licenses? ?

?

Cheers,

Thorsten

?

?

?

What I’m reading here seems to be mostly fear of change.? Having worked on the client side for over a decade, and in high-dollar residential for two, I can tell you VC-4 is a product our clients have been wanting for a long time.?

?

It’s a solution that can be deployed globally as a hardware box, or VM in the cloud, that is managed like other IT resources.? This architecture gives them visibility and control over AV equipment on their network instead of it being a collection of mystery boxes on their network (if they even allow it).? Deployed on a segmented AV VLAN or sub-network it’s a powerful leap forward from the Flintstone black-box solution the AV industry seems so attached to.

?

With this said, Crestron has a major conundrum with the licensing.? Upon initial release there was no “phone home” requirement.? What they found is integrators were essentially pirating VC-4 and they took measures to protect their intellectual property.? Leave it to the few bad to screw things up for the good.?

?

?

Key issues needing a resolution.

1. HA (High-Availability) – Currently it’s a manual process to reboot or spin up another instance if the server goes down.? If the whole house or multiple offices are running on a server then it needs the ability to be deployed as a super clustered pair of servers with auto failover.
2. Evolved Software Theft Protection – I think they can take a page from the non-linear audio/video editing industry here (without the torrent issues).? There is also no reason a client cannot set this up in a DMZ with limited access to the licensing server.? LAN/WAN teams do this on a regular basis with a multitude of products.
3. Linux – Would really like to see them develop a version that runs on Red Hat, but that would mean the licensing would have to go up in price.

?

Best,

?

Noah

?

?

To the many points made, this is why I actually prefer a used 3-series/purpose-built appliance to the concept of VC4/3rd-Party 'commodity' hardware (then update to 4-series when available)
Frankly for most residential systems, 3-series is fine IMO.

At the very least, there will be a pretty long learning curve for VC4 as we find all the things that are 'different' with it vs a dedicated processor.

It may be the way to go long-term, but I'm always warry of the modern attitude of 'new is cool and thus better' (Largely driven by Marketing departments).
My experience is that most new stuff is not thought through very well compared to past times (showing my age here!) and this is one of the reasons that things seem to have a shelf life in 'minutes' not years...

From my perspective, the cost of developing for the 'catch of the day' is higher than can be rightly amortized.
And at the end of the day, the things we're doing are pretty much the same things we did 20 years ago - there just seems to be a desire to do old things in a new way so that it seems more exciting, but not really different...

Lee!

?

Always a pleasure my friend.?

?

Unfortunately, vendors were cloning the hard drive and deploying the server on an isolated network so it did not know what it did not know.?

?

My initial though is they could tie the license to the chip ID, but this does not work for HA deployment.? I ran into this with Polycom servers in an enterprise VM environment.? We had a datacenter go down and failover, well… failed because it refused to spin up on the new virtual machine.

?

They are looking into using a USB key, but this does not solve licensing for virtual instances.? Quite the conundrum indeed.

?

-Noah

?

?

I?m with Noah,

decoupling the ?Crestron-OS“ from the hardware adds options instead of limiting (at least as long as Crestron continues to deliver hardware processor as well).

Many modern automation systems were developed as a software right from the beginning.

?

However, i?ve got an IT-background, so that makes things easier I guess.

?

And I also agree that there are issues (mentioned by Noah and others) that need to be addressed, but i?m confident they will.

?

Anyone on my side with a petition for free developer VC4-licenses? ?

?

Cheers,

Thorsten

?

?

?

What I’m reading here seems to be mostly fear of change.? Having worked on the client side for over a decade, and in high-dollar residential for two, I can tell you VC-4 is a product our clients have been wanting for a long time.?

?

It’s a solution that can be deployed globally as a hardware box, or VM in the cloud, that is managed like other IT resources.? This architecture gives them visibility and control over AV equipment on their network instead of it being a collection of mystery boxes on their network (if they even allow it).? Deployed on a segmented AV VLAN or sub-network it’s a powerful leap forward from the Flintstone black-box solution the AV industry seems so attached to.

?

With this said, Crestron has a major conundrum with the licensing.? Upon initial release there was no “phone home” requirement.? What they found is integrators were essentially pirating VC-4 and they took measures to protect their intellectual property.? Leave it to the few bad to screw things up for the good.?

?

?

Key issues needing a resolution.

1. HA (High-Availability) – Currently it’s a manual process to reboot or spin up another instance if the server goes down.? If the whole house or multiple offices are running on a server then it needs the ability to be deployed as a super clustered pair of servers with auto failover.
2. Evolved Software Theft Protection – I think they can take a page from the non-linear audio/video editing industry here (without the torrent issues).? There is also no reason a client cannot set this up in a DMZ with limited access to the licensing server.? LAN/WAN teams do this on a regular basis with a multitude of products.
3. Linux – Would really like to see them develop a version that runs on Red Hat, but that would mean the licensing would have to go up in price.

?

Best,

?

Noah

?

?

To the many points made, this is why I actually prefer a used 3-series/purpose-built appliance to the concept of VC4/3rd-Party 'commodity' hardware (then update to 4-series when available)
Frankly for most residential systems, 3-series is fine IMO.

At the very least, there will be a pretty long learning curve for VC4 as we find all the things that are 'different' with it vs a dedicated processor.

It may be the way to go long-term, but I'm always warry of the modern attitude of 'new is cool and thus better' (Largely driven by Marketing departments).
My experience is that most new stuff is not thought through very well compared to past times (showing my age here!) and this is one of the reasons that things seem to have a shelf life in 'minutes' not years...

From my perspective, the cost of developing for the 'catch of the day' is higher than can be rightly amortized.
And at the end of the day, the things we're doing are pretty much the same things we did 20 years ago - there just seems to be a desire to do old things in a new way so that it seems more exciting, but not really different...