What are the main real-world opinions on the Fibaro Z-Wave smart home system, especially for a new house?
Fibaro is generally viewed as a convenient, expandable wireless smart-home system that works well for retrofits and basic automation, but many users still prefer a wired system for a new build because they consider it more reliable and less prone to interference [#9979253][#9985433] One user who tested it said installing the modules was straightforward, but setting up scenes was the harder part; the controller software is configured over the network, so you don’t need to lay long control cables [#10691543] Another owner reported that the system was working well after a week and that the dimmers did not click audibly [#10701630] On the negative side, one HC2 user said customer support and remote access were unreliable and that remote access had still not been fixed after several weeks [#10496512] Supporters also stressed that Z-Wave devices act as repeaters in a mesh network, so routes are reconfigured if one path is disturbed [#9985433]
AI summary based on the discussion. May contain errors.
Hello, I’ve recently managed to find a bit of spare time and take up the invitation from the lads at Fibaro to attend a training course.
My overall opinion: it’s a great system, both in terms of visualisation and functionality. It uses Z-Wave technology – to be honest, I didn’t know much about it at first, so I did a bit of Googling. It turns out that quite a few companies are starting to experiment with this technology, which means the possibilities for implementation are vast...
The system won me over with its simplicity and functionality, and let’s face it, as a wireless system it has more potential with customers than wired systems. But as a sceptic, I try to approach everything with a degree of caution, which is why I’m posting here – has anyone here already installed this system or had any other experience with it? I’d like to get a broader range of opinions on the subject.
I’d also like to ask for your opinion on the Fibaro system. I’m in the process of building a house and am seriously considering this solution. As far as I know, the system is wireless and can be controlled via a mobile phone or laptop, which I find very convenient. However, I’m also keen to save money, and the system has a feature for measuring gas and water consumption – a very useful function. What do you think about it?
If you’re building a new house and haven’t had any plasterwork done yet, choose a wired system, as these are much safer and more reliable.
I don’t actually have Fibaro myself, but the Fibaro domain has been online for about a year. So the system is even newer and hasn’t been tested by a large number of users.
It’s wireless, so it’ll either work or it won’t. If they put up a mobile phone mast in the area, the whole thing could stop working. When a neighbour in my area installed a CCTV radio link, the range of my 433 MHz remote controls dropped from 150 metres to 10 metres. When they put up a mobile phone mast a kilometre away from me, my Wi-Fi range also dropped by a factor of 2–3, and I had to add another router. With Wi-Fi, there are 12 channels, so you can’t keep increasing them indefinitely, especially if you have neighbours nearby.
It’s also very easy to interfere with the operation of wireless radio systems and those operating via the mains in larger residential areas.
I’ve had an EHouse smart home system at home since 2005, and I can honestly recommend it. You can install it yourself; examples and instructions can be found here inteligentny-dom.ehouse.pro
Our colleague robja is putting forward some interesting theories
First of all, I’d like to ask a question: why do you put forward the theory that the system hasn’t been tested? Fibaro’s sales are incomparably higher than those of other systems from domestic manufacturers.
I am very curious to know whether the system mentioned by my colleague has sold even 10% of what Fibaro has (currently over 1,000 installations nationwide). Is that not enough? Sales began in April this year.
The system has been under development and design for over two years.
As for wireless solutions, with all due respect, let’s not resort to absurdities.
I get the feeling that my colleague is from the competition… Somehow, I find it hard to believe that they’ve set up such transmitters for him within a kilometre’s radius.
Nevertheless, let’s get down to specifics:
Wi-Fi operates at microwave frequencies of 2.4 and 5 GHz. Mobile networks operate at much lower frequencies. If a GSM transmitter operating at a distance of one kilometre were to degrade the Wi-Fi signal by 70%,
What would happen in city centres, where the distance from transmitters is sometimes no more than a few hundred metres and they are often mounted on every other building? What would happen in office blocks where ‘open’ waveguides are installed in the walls?
Nobody’s Wi-Fi would work…
As for devices operating at 433 MHz, in order to jam the signal by 90% , such a radio link would have to be aimed directly at the building; unfortunately, it would then be ineffective, as radio links used for transmitting large amounts of data (in this case, CCTV) must have a sufficiently clear Fresnel zone to maintain stable performance – a zone that would be obstructed by the building in question. Furthermore, both ends of the radio link should be in line of sight. Finally, radio links of this type operate in a completely different band, as 433 MHz would be too ‘slow’ for them. So, once again, my colleague has referred to a paranoid scenario...
Fibaro operates on Z-Wave, where every actuator is also a repeater – that is, it relays the signal from another device – so that if one radio channel is jammed in any way, the devices will immediately find an alternative route and reconfigure the routing within their network. You can find out more about this by Googling the term ‘mesh’.
As for laying additional cables – parallel low-voltage infrastructure from the ‘switch’ buttons to the distribution board – Fibaro will soon be introducing solutions for DIN rails.
However, if you’re at the construction stage, I strongly advise against incurring these additional costs. Such a solution is not only not very scalable but, above all, it prevents any flexibility.
Fibaro’s miniature modules can be fitted anywhere – even in a lamp or a chosen appliance (e.g. a coffee machine). Can you imagine running control cables to such peripherals?
Finally, as the icing on the cake, I’ll give an example from one of the projects carried out in Wrocław.
A gated estate, comprising two apartment blocks, each with 76 luxury flats.
The barrier and garage doors are opened using 433 MHz remote controls (over 70 Fibaro remotes and around 130 standard ones were issued, including about 20 integrated into cars via Fibaro (two long flashes open the barrier, three open the relevant gate to the underground car park) operating on different channels (I can’t remember how many at the moment).
In all the flats, there’s a Fibaro Home Centre with around 60 devices in each HC, plus scenes. Nothing interferes, nothing gets distorted, no surprises.
In the neighbouring housing estate (also gated), there’s an Orange transmitter (about 700 metres away). I probably don’t need to point out that every flat has Wi-Fi.
Mr Fidme. This forum is for practising electronics engineers, so I’ve set out my views and concerns regarding wireless systems.
I’m not claiming that Fibaro is untried or unreliable, because, as I wrote earlier, I don’t have it. However, both in theory and in practice, I know that publicly accessible networks – such as the power grid and radio links – are much more susceptible to interference and hacking than systems operating over cabled, isolated and closed networks. Signal propagation also depends on many factors, and the sensitivity of devices can even be affected by the ageing of components.
I’m not talking about transmitting a video signal via a 433 MHz radio link, but rather an alarm signal to notify a security agency (not to be confused with CCTV). As for the 433 MHz radio link, particularly in the case of devices operating in AM mode, the transmitter does not need to be directed towards my house at all, especially as, in order to notify a monitoring station 10 km away from the receiver, it must have hundreds or thousands of times more power than remote controls (I also dare to doubt whether they comply with type approval). All you need to do is park your car, for example, outside the Palace of Culture in Warsaw and try to open it with a remote control to illustrate this.
Nor am I claiming that Wi-Fi is inherently unstable, but you write in good faith that no one will try to jam the signal – let alone hack into it. Back in primary school 30 years ago, I used to make ‘jammers’ using a single transistor and 10 other components (powered by a 9V battery and fitting almost into a matchbox) that could jam the TV signal throughout the whole block of flats, so how much work would it take for someone to build similar devices for Wi-Fi just for fun? After all, GSM jammers are already widely available in Warsaw and are successfully used by criminal elements.
The stability and effectiveness of any system is only as good as its weakest link – in this case, wireless communication.
How would a miniature device – such as a Wi-Fi router, a Z-Wave modem or a Wi-Fi interface (compliant with standards) – cope with a transmitter of, say, 1–2 watts (100–200 PLN per unit) that broadcasts across the entire Wi-Fi spectrum and serves only to cause interference or make life difficult for neighbours, particularly in blocks of flats, apartments, etc.?
I agree that if I were to buy a ready-built flat, I would probably install a wireless system; however, if you read through other forums (Murator, Budujemy Dom), you’ll find that many home automation installers always recommend wired systems for new-build homes. When the system is densely packed with outputs, their price works out cheaper than systems of the ‘1 device + communication modem’ type, and they are also less susceptible to external factors.
For example, eHouse is based on room controllers (24 digital outputs, 12 digital inputs, 8 ADC inputs, 3 PWM dimmers, and an IR receiver and transmitter).
With a maximum installation of 11 room controllers for my home, I have 268 outputs, 132 digital inputs, 36 dimmers and 88 measurement inputs at my disposal. In addition, there are independent controllers for roller shutters, the alarm system and the boiler room. For my system, the automation costs were around 15tys; of course, I had to lay the low-voltage cables, but when I checked competing solutions before installation (particularly wireless ones and those operating over the mains), they cost 10 times as much, so the cost of the cabling and installation doesn’t affect this ratio too much, especially when doing the installation yourself, which is what I did. Out of curiosity, could you perhaps post the equipment costs for such an installation on the forum for comparison?
Congratulations on reaching ten thousand installations, but how many of these installations already have residents, given that the system has been installed in them since April?. Do I take it that none of the customers have yet spent even a single full season in a home fitted with Fibaro to be able to describe how satisfied they are? No offence, but to me, a system praised by a single user who’s been using it and living with it for a few years is worth more than 1,000 users who’ve only been using it for, say, a month.
I don’t know how many customers eHouse has, but the fact that the manufacturer’s domain is 10 years old appeals to me more than Fibaro’s, which is only 1 year old.
I also once read a statement by a lady from Fibaro (a partner, I believe) on the money.pl website, claiming that only Fibaro allows external connection via TCP/IP without a static IP address. For the record, I’ve had this in eHouse since early 2005 via DDNS or directly via SMS, and I’m sure every other system has had this as standard for years, so such statements are, to put it mildly, far-fetched, embarrassing and indicative of a lack of technical knowledge.
It’s great that new automation systems are being developed, making them more affordable for ‘ordinary folk’ like me. If I were to build a new house, I might well take an interest in Fibaro too, provided it’s competitively priced, but for now I regard such statements as lobbying and marketing that doesn’t quite tell the whole truth – which would rather put me off buying it.
Dear Sir, fitters recommend a wired solution because it means extra money for them. It’s obvious, isn’t it! Cable + installation = more money. Why would they recommend a system to an uninformed customer if it means they’ll earn less?
In your case, it may have worked out, but not everyone can lay the cables themselves. Most people call in a professional for this.
I’d be more than happy to compare the costs of the systems.
Please could you provide more detailed specifications? How many on/off circuits (it doesn’t matter whether they’re for lights, gates, etc.)
how many motorised circuits how many and what type of sensors
As for remote connection, the matter is by no means so straightforward. And the information is in NO way exaggerated!
For your information, 90 per cent of internet users have no idea what DDNS is, let alone how to configure a router properly.
And this is precisely where FIBARO excels. Because the user doesn’t need to know any of this; they don’t need to configure anything – they simply press the [REMOTE ACCESS] button and immediately establish a connection with their control centre. This process is handled by a cluster of servers located in Poznań and Warsaw.
Furthermore, free control via text messages without the need to install any additional GSM modules is also a very convenient feature for the customer.
Do you still maintain that Ms Osowska’s statement is embarrassing and demonstrates a lack of technical knowledge??
I get the impression that you didn’t realise this could be implemented at such a high level.
No static IP addresses, no router configuration, no DDNS, no VPN connection. Just the [REMOTE ACCESS] button – that’s how it works, sir!
To some extent, the equation ‘cable + location = higher earnings’ certainly applies, but this is mainly the case for smaller firms.
Large firms charge a flat rate per point, and this is generally the same for both wireless and wired installations.
We are, of course, talking about installation in a newly built house, not stripping cables from the walls and laying new ones.
Large companies try to charge as much as possible whilst doing as little work as possible, and in my view, they make the least profit from laying cables because customers are already able to work out metres * price * % margin.
In my view, profits are mainly derived from the margin on equipment, configuration, programming and design work.
I have a friend who carries out EIB installations, and it’s a grey area (estimating how much the customer can afford to pay), rather than how much the system is actually worth. They don’t even bother with houses under 400m, as they consider such a client too ‘small-time’ to make a profit on. Most clients come via referrals from reputable architects, who provide these ‘sponsored’ references in exchange for fat envelopes slipped under the table.
Returning to the topic of wireless technology:
With wireless networks or radio transmission, in some situations we have no control over how radio waves will propagate (this depends largely on the construction technology).
Examples: I have cast-in-situ ceilings (filigran) in my house; I put in a lot of reinforcement as I was planning to install waterbeds.
At present, for a small 150m² house measuring 12m by 8m, I need a Wi-Fi router on each façade to achieve reasonable network coverage (3 routers).
By way of comparison, I ran some Bluetooth tests – the signal doesn’t even pass through the ceiling (with the transmitter on one side in the same spot and the receiver on the other – in a straight line and at right angles). A Wi-Fi printer also doesn’t work everywhere, despite having three routers.
I’ve seen people building houses almost like office blocks – with external and load-bearing walls featuring dense reinforcement and poured concrete – and in such situations, installing a wireless system usually ends in failure.
If that doesn’t make sense to anyone, here’s another example: my neighbour, despite living very close to a mobile phone mast, has to step outside to make a call on his mobile (he has triple-layered ceramic walls) – which is particularly troublesome when it’s -20°C outside
I’m not saying that wireless systems don’t work 100 per cent of the time, but the percentage of failures or malfunctions is higher compared to wired systems (which have a 0 per cent failure rate here). We can, of course, engage in private debates here, but as someone with a higher education in electronics who has been actively involved in the field for nearly 30 years, you won’t convince me.
I agree with the statement that not everyone needs to know what DDNS is, but I’m commenting on the claim that it’s the only system on the market that doesn’t require a static IP address.
DDNS is essentially a one-off router configuration and the addition of a user account for the DDNS service, so it’s merely an additional service that a ‘luser’ doesn’t even need to be aware of – but let’s not make a huge fuss or a big deal out of it, assuming that everyone on the internet knows nothing, as a single query to Uncle Google sorts it out. Nor should we take all internet users into account here (people who’ve never touched a computer in their lives will never opt for home automation), as they’ll be afraid of it and will never dare to adopt such advanced technical and technological solutions in their homes, for fear of becoming their slaves. After all, this is a niche market dedicated to people with at least a moderate level of familiarity with IT and electronics.
I In eHouse, within the Windows Mobile control panels, I simply have the option to choose between Wi-Fi and the Internet (this is transparent to the user), so I suppose eHouse is, to quote: “excellent and superb” just like the 100 or so similar systems on the market. In this scenario, we immediately award all systems a ‘6’ at the outset and choose between systems rated ‘6’ (and there are probably no others).
‘Remote access’ is a very broad term (so any practitioner will ask: ‘how?’) I have direct (online) access via TCP/IP (Wi-Fi/Internet/GSM) or offline via SMS; I can also access it via email or FTP by sequentially transferring data and verifying it on the other end. The manufacturer’s website features screenshots illustrating the simple installation of certain system control methods
smart home in the ‘Gallery’ menu
For me, the type of communication is important because you actually pay for it, and it’s always the system’s weakest point:
there are plenty of options here, and some remote access methods are fine whilst others are less so. Some manufacturers offered me a remote access solution via SMS and MMS, which meant sending messages every few seconds, not to mention the costs. It’s unlikely anyone would want to pay to use a smart building like that. A car with square wheels can still drive, so let’s not say that technology doesn’t matter.
How do you manage SMS transmission if you don’t have any SMS gateways? I can’t see any other option than some sort of gateway (software or hardware) on the automation system side? Unless you’re relying on external third-party services?
I’m also not quite sure since when sending an SMS has been free – could you elaborate on that a little? After all, this is a forum for practising electronics engineers, not salespeople, so we prefer specifics rather than general information from advertising brochures.
As for price comparisons, I’m providing links to the products I own from the manufacturer’s website, so as not to clutter up the forum or repeat information (for those who aren’t interested), as well as a link smart home price eHouse
My installation comprises: 10 RoomManagers - lighting and heating control in rooms
1 HeatManager - Central heating control boiler room and heat recovery unit, collectors ...
1 CommManager - control of roller shutters, gates + alarm with SMS notifications
- 10 × 24 = 240 digital on/off outputs - 10 × 12 = 120 digital on/off inputs - 10 lighting measurement inputs with sensors
- 7*10=70 ADC measurement inputs with temperature sensors (any other sensors with a voltage range of 0–5V can be connected)
- support for 27 independent SOMFY roller shutter, gate and awning systems - up to 48 inputs – alarm detectors in a security system with SMS notifications
- 10 × 3 = 30 PWM dimmers for LEDs and RGB LEDs - 10 infrared receivers for each controller (in every room) to control the system via a Sony remote control
- 10 infrared transmitters for each controller (in every room) for wireless control of audio-visual equipment - Plus a controller for the boiler room, a water-jacketed fireplace, the DGP system and solar collectors
with The DIY eHouse installation kit has a separate price list (roughly half the price of the controllers) So my controllers, as part of the DIY installation kit, cost (net):
10 × 900 + 900 + 3,100 = 13,000 PLN net Full version with a 2-year warranty: 10 × 1,500 + 1,500 + 5,600 = 22,100 PLN net
This includes a full set of temperature and lighting sensors, plus the software package – the full, top-of-the-range version. I paid around 4tys for all the cables, with the wiring distributed throughout the house (I didn’t install a central distribution board, just a small one in each controlled room) As far as I could find out, the labour cost for laying these cables on the market would have been around 4tys
Dear Mr dendytus, I’ll do the maths for you, as you’re misleading your readers.
15 x on/off 2 x 1.5 kW = 3,750 7 x roller blinds = 1,743
12 x on/off 1 x 3 kW = 2,988 10 x dimmers = 2,490 Radio link = 299 2 remote controls = 99 HC = 1,999
iPad 2 = 999 iPad dock with power supply = 310 Free installation
14,677 net – 10% discount = 13,209 net. 16,247 including VAT.
I reckon your calculator’s gone a bit haywire, mate, because you’ve overestimated the cost by nearly 10,000.
Do you still claim that you’ll get that level of functionality from Nexwell for that price? You’ve probably forgotten that Nexwell recently raised their prices – and quite significantly at that.
I won’t even get into the issues of cable laying or configuring this solution, because installing it on Fibaro takes less than two days. I’m curious how long it would take on any other system....
What’s more, Fibaro integrates perfectly with the Satel alarm system without the slightest problem; not only that, but you can utilise Satel’s functions in scenes controlled by the system. So connecting existing reed switches or detectors is entirely feasible and recommended.
What’s more, once this integration is complete, you immediately get remote monitoring of the alarm system directly on your phone.
By the way, I’ll ask about security, just as a fellow user did on another forum. Does Nexwell have an alarm system certified to Class S? Because as far as I recall, a fellow user recently claimed that if the system doesn’t have such a certificate, it’s rubbish and a load of rubbish... It smacks of a bit of hypocrisy to me.
As for the roller shutters, not necessarily – there are solar-powered ones. Many manufacturers make them. I don’t have time to look for photos, but I suppose that’s no problem for you; you spend all day on forums anyway, so you’ll find some.
As for laying the cables yourself, I don’t know how you can compare that to HC programming? It’s a straightforward and pleasant job. The whole system is set up via a web interface from any computer. I doubt that a customer who sets up a scene for themselves would be laying cables throughout the building themselves.
As for fitting the controller into the housing of this light fitting, I don’t see what the problem is – it’s clear you’ve never even held a Fibaro ‘module’ in your hands. As for mounting it directly inside the light fitting, it all depends on the design of the cover over the connection points. There’s no point in discussing this, as there are thousands of light fitting models on the market. It might fit in one, but not in another.
As for the coffee machine, it’s clear you haven’t even grasped the concept. It’s not about switching it on. You don’t even need to insert a module inside for that; it’s about controlling it directly. The modules are so small that they fit into some coffee machines. And that’s exactly what we’re talking about!
I don’t know what all this is about copying from the Nexwell website; our marketing team writes the texts themselves. And it’s surely obvious that both systems deal with the same subject. We’re supposed to write about tomatoes and parsley on our website. Besides, they’re completely different websites. What are you getting at?
What’s more, how do we know they didn’t copy something from us? Most of our graphics are already all over the internet on the websites of dozens of companies. I’ve even seen our interface in a competitor’s catalogue at a trade fair recently... There are also those who even optimise their sites for the term ‘Fibaro’ on Google.
As for the flats, please forgive me, but I won’t get involved in such a pointless discussion and I’ll take the liberty of not responding to that comment.
We train electricians all the time so that they can familiarise themselves with the system and see how simple it is. I know this may seem strange to you, but that’s how things are in some companies. However, I don’t think there’s any point in arguing about sales and information policy..
Contrary to what you may think, Apple does indeed organise training sessions and courses on how to use its devices, particularly its mobile devices. I assume you’ve never been to an Apple store, but the vast majority (if not all) of them have a so-called Genius Bar, as well as tables for regular training sessions!
There are also those who even rank for the term ‘Fibaro’ on Google.
Hello
As for copying text, I won’t comment on that. As for the practice of optimising for search results based on other brands, please take a look at the screenshot taken on 13 May 2011. Please don’t make a fool of yourself.
It really isn’t on, this copying business. Some of our words and ideas have also found their way onto the Fibaro website. (On top of that, there’s the clumsy copying of solutions, which Mr Fidme is well aware of)
The lads from Homiq and Nexwell. I’m sorry, but these links are from half a year ago (when Fibar) was using an external SEO company and didn’t even know about it; as far as I know, this was disabled following your intervention. Shall we send you a box of chocolates as an apology? P.S. Leszek, please…
My dear fellow,
I understand that, having nothing to do all day, you spend your time on forums, but such a volume of irrelevant drivel simply horrifies me. Unfortunately, I don’t have as much time as you do, so I’ll just briefly address a few points.
1. The iPad is available at a special price only when purchasing the Fibaro system. 2. In these properties, the SATEL system was installed independently; consequently, all sensors are also controlled via the Fibaro HC – speaking of a lack of intelligence...
3. There are nearly 60 supported devices because our range includes two circuit modules – for the price of one, you get control over two circuits/devices.
4. You don’t need to go to great lengths to get price lists, discounts or find out about integration options. Just get off your arse, leave your computer and pop into a showroom to, for example, sign an installation contract. You can do the same with Nexwell – that way you’ll find out their prices too.
5. Module dimensions: http://fibaro.com/index.php?ID=instalacja This discussion about the lamps is ridiculous. Just measure whether it’ll fit, and that’s that! 6. Please stop spreading nonsense about plagiarism.
7. And please, do stop with this nonsense, because you’re making a complete fool of yourself:
Quote:
If it were still going strong, Class S devices using wireless technology would be commonplace. As far as I’m aware there isn’t even a single such device. So we can forget about professional applications. And whether or not Nexwell has an S-class is completely irrelevant in this context.
Quote:
Devices from the ABAX family operate on the basis of a wireless, bidirectional, encrypted communication system that meets the highest security requirements (security class „S”) . Two-way data transmission enables the use of an acknowledgement procedure for every message.
As we can see, you’re just as well-versed in everything else; it’s a good thing you’ve forgotten about professional solutions – you’ll be saying next that a satellite is unprofessional – we’ll leave it at that.
I suggest we bring this off-topic discussion to a close, as it adds nothing further to the subject.
That’s only twice as much as Fidme states. So I don’t know on what basis I’m supposed to trust that the module draws 60 mW… or perhaps it’s 120 mW… or maybe 600 mW?
To electronics engineers, I refer you to the documentation for Z-Wave chips and Z-Wave modules:
It is important to remember that such circuits require peripherals (e.g. a power supply), which also consume additional milliwatts.
fidme wrote:
e.g.:
Satela’s I/O with our I/O, 3 channels per zone = full integration of the Satela zone into Fibaro. And even so, I doubt this tells you anything.
It takes a moment and a bit of knowledge.
It’s a bit like someone wanting to ‘fully’ integrate their car with their garage door, without necessarily relying on Fibaro’s ‘innovative technical solutions’.
I’ve been following the discussion about the Fibaro system and would like to ask a few questions. I’d be very grateful for a reply. These questions are addressed to fidme.
- How is the position of the roller shutter detected without using any additional sensors? - Is it really possible to connect a load with any supply voltage to the relay system?
- What do I get for 3,000 net? What is included in the basic system? - I’d like to read more about the ability to control every multimedia device in my home. Where can I find this information?
I can answer the first question on fidme’s behalf. Fidme doesn’t like to reply if he can’t have a go at the person he’s talking to.
The position of the roller shutter is determined based on the duration of the load at the output. To be more precise, when the module is set to close or open the roller shutter, voltage is applied to one of the outputs. Provided the command can be executed (as you cannot close a roller shutter that is already closed, nor open one that is already fully open), current flows to the relevant motor. When the roller shutter reaches its end position – the limit switch will break the circuit – at this very moment, the Z-Wave module receives a signal that the roller shutter has moved to its end position, and the module also automatically cuts off the power in a fraction of a second after the limit switch is triggered.
This works in the same way in both directions.
If the roller shutter module is switched on without a load or with a very small load (e.g. an energy-saving light bulb instead of a motor), the output voltage appears for only a fraction of a second and then disappears, as the circuit interprets the absence of a load as the roller shutter having reached its end position.
This isn’t usually a problem – though it can be an issue with electronic motor controllers.
From what the people at Fibaro have said, the module uses information about the total time taken to open or close the roller shutter for automatic calibration. I understand that every switch from one end position of the roller shutter to the other calibrates the module by recording the opening and closing times.
Knowing this time, it is possible to implement a function to open the roller shutter to a specified percentage. It is just as easy to store the current percentage of the roller shutter’s opening in memory.
This method is effective in practice, as extreme positions are frequently used. In tests, after repeatedly opening the roller shutter ‘part-way’, the position detection became slightly inaccurate.
Thank you very much for your reply. I’ve read a few of fidme’s posts and I’m really pleased that it’s you replying, rather than some marketing jargon specialist.....
So it’s just as I thought. Where I live, there are occasional brief power cuts – 4–5 times a month, lasting 1 second. Is the roller shutter’s position stored in the EEPROM, or does the controller ‘lose its bearings’ when the power is cut off, meaning the percentage opening function stops working?
e.g.: Satela’s I/O with our I/O, 3 channels per zone = full integration of the Satela zone into Fibaro.
And even so, I doubt this means anything to you. It takes just a moment and a bit of know-how.
Mr Fidme – you can pull the wool over the eyes of laypeople with such platitudes.
What you’re writing means nothing, because your intention was to present the matter in such a way as to mislead the reader, so that the reader would imagine more than your company actually offers.
You’re not the first to ‘sell’ this fairy tale about full Satel integration. I’ve heard it from another representative of your company – but this fairy tale was debunked almost immediately by another Fibar employee.
I thought there was an interface available via RS, USB or Ethernet that reads the full status of the Satela system and transmits it to the HC. What did I learn from a real engineer (as opposed to a ‘marketing engineer’) at Fibar?
Well, that the integration involves connecting the ON/OFF outputs of the modules to the arming input of the control panel and connecting the inputs of the same modules to the outputs of the alarm control panel.
The next ‘milestone’ in alarm control panel integration is set to be a mysterious Z-Wave chip inserted into the alarm’s motion detectors. The chip is to be powered by the detector’s voltage. The detector’s parametric output is to trigger the alarm and also be connected to the Z-Wave input. The Z-Wave module’s input will, of course, not interfere with the alarm’s operation. And the detector’s status (both intrusion and tampering) will be transmitted to the Z-Wave system.
A solution that is as clever as it is rudimentary. Yes, it will certainly work, and an almost bare ZM3102 (ZW0301) chip could fulfil this role.
But wouldn’t it be a more elegant solution to connect the alarm control panel to the Z-Wave hub via a USB/RS cable? That’s what I’d call full integration.
I can’t believe it...
When switched on, the dimmer draws around 80mW in addition to the load it controls, depending on the quality of the supply voltage. In standby mode, it draws around 60mW
Circuits with relays draw around 60 mW + approximately 100 mW for each relay when switched on.
It’s easy to work out that 100 modules will draw a total of around 6W. 720 hours a month gives us 4.3kWh. At 0.50gr per 1kWh, that works out at 2.16PLN for 100 modules, which is:
2 grosze per cube per month
I just can’t believe it... How can anyone lie to someone’s face like that!? In the Middle Ages, people believed that the Earth was flat, and that ice didn’t sink because it lay flat on the water. They believed it because that’s what they were told.
It wasn’t until Leonardo da Vinci that someone thought to push a piece of ice under the water with his own hand, only for it to float back to the surface.
Like Leonardo, I don’t take things at face value (especially when it comes to a certain company whose name I won’t mention ).
I took a power meter, connected it to the power strips from the company whose name I won’t mention, and here’s what I found:
Dimmer (not to be confused with the Fidme ‘dimmer’) consumes 2.3W which is almost 40 times more than fidme claimed .
This measurement confirmed earlier “sensory tests” – all modules get very hot
( 40°C in open air and 55°C when housed in a junction box)
- which would not be the case at 100mW, but at 2300mW it certainly does.
The double on/off switch draws, without relays, 0.6W (600mW rather than 60!) which is 10 times more than fidme claimed .
The same switch with one relay activated 0.9W (900mW) with two relays activated 1W (1000mW) .
All measurements at 230V – I suppose fidme forgot that he’d given the power ratings for a ~24V supply
It’s easy to work out that 100 cubes will draw a total of approximately 230W times 720 hours a month gives us 166kWh .
Converted into money, 100 dimmer modules will cost 83 zł a month .
If you mix 50 dimmers and 50 on/off switches, it works out a little less – 64zł/month. On top of that, there’s about 4zł/month for the HC Vera’s electricity consumption.
Personally, I pay relatively high electricity bills of 250 zł per month – and I only use electricity for lighting and multimedia; everything else runs on gas.
The claimed electricity savings of 30% does not work for me with my smart installation.
My friend had a bit of a problem with this system. It would just go haywire from time to time and we didn’t know why. It turned out the problem was a faulty brush holder in that rubbish vacuum cleaner. Good luck, Fibaro. I wonder if the electromagnetic radiation from this system is safe for your health? Perhaps for Christmas my mate will make himself a Christmas tree with wireless lights powered by the Fibaro system Could this be a new feature?
The next ‘milestone’ in the integration of alarm control panels is set to be a mysterious Z-Wave chip inserted into motion detectors. The chip is to be powered by the detector’s voltage. The detector’s parametric output is to trigger the alarm and also be connected to the Z-Wave input. The Z-Wave module’s input will, of course, not interfere with the alarm’s operation. And the detector’s status (both intrusion and tampering) will be transmitted to the Z-Wave system.
A solution that is as clever as it is rudimentary. Yes, it will certainly work, and an almost bare ZM3102 (ZW0301) chip could fulfil this role.
But wouldn’t it be a more elegant solution to connect the alarm control panel to the Z-Wave control panel via a USB/RS cable? That’s what I’d call full integration.
The answer is dead simple. Wired integration with Satel would cost about 5–10 zł for the cable, plus 150 zł for the cable packaging and a free feature in the Fibaro control panel.
But as it is, the number of PIRs multiplied by 100 zł (for example, although such ‘super technology’ would probably cost 250 zł + VAT) explains the reason behind this botched job.
But how on earth will this module fit into every detector? And what guarantee is there that it won’t trigger false alarms with some detectors?
I’d like to add one more point to the discussion: even though Fibaro is supposed to be so amazing, I recently found out at the shop that text messages only work when there’s an internet connection, so without the internet, it won’t control anything. There’s no GSM gateway, so if the internet goes down at home, there’s absolutely nothing we can do...
The best way to test it is to check their forum; there you can find out a lot about what works and what doesn’t yet… (and yet there are some interesting details you can pick up on that give you more food for thought)
As for the alarm system, as far as I’m aware at the moment, retailers are offering to control the outputs on the control panels and ‘read’ them via an on/off switch rated at 2×1.5 kW, the cost of this on/off module is 250 PLN net; with only 20 alarm system components in the house (which isn’t a lot, but isn’t a small number either), we’d have to spend 2,500 PLN net on integration plus, say, 500 PLN for an output module,
The integration with the alarm system alone would set us back around 3,000 in this case, which, as my colleague pointed out, could cost 15 PLN per LAN cable.
I’m an HC2 user. Generally speaking, I’m happy with the system itself, but I’m not particularly impressed with the customer service or their reliability
For nearly five weeks now, I’ve been trying to find out about remote access, and every time I’m told it’ll be working in a week’s time – yet it still hasn’t been working for five weeks.
What’s more, before I bought it, I asked about this feature and was told it was already working and there wouldn’t be any problems with it; yet after I bought it and set it up, it doesn’t work.
As things stand, the people at Fibaro are terribly unreliable and fail to meet deadlines.
I’m sure they realise that if this continues, they’ll unfortunately start losing customers.
A good system isn’t everything, gentlemen at Fibaro...
Fibaro is behaving rather strangely. It’s clear that every employee has undergone training in neuro-linguistic programming, but that’s not all. You’re carrying out installations yourselves. So what’s the point of all this fuss with training, contracts and so on? You say that the installation takes 1.2 days, but then the installer quotes 2,500 for the job and the customer shows us the door. Don’t go down that road...… Either you’re distributors or a company specialising in smart home installations. If you want to do both, be aware that you’re becoming our competitors, and we don’t buy from competitors.
Secondly, please specify the launch dates for: - Multi-room - Voice control - Connecting the control unit to the TV - A device for integrating sensors
I’m currently in the process of preparing to build a house. I’ve already had the standard electrical installation designed. I was intrigued by Figaro’s offer, mainly because of the simplicity and clarity of their website (I’m not an electronics engineer).
However, reviews – not just on this forum – have dissuaded me from the idea of a Wi-Fi-based system. The main argument is stability and security....
I’ve taken a liking to Homiq and similar solutions. What would you gentlemen recommend, and what are the costs involved in such an installation?
Thank you in advance for bearing with my layman’s question
Don’t base your opinion on the forum – most of the posts about Fibaro on this forum are written by people associated with the company or its competitors. So the comments about them are extreme. None of the forum users have written that the system is unstable or that anything isn’t working as it should. The second issue is security. The Fibaro system is based on Z-Wave, so it will be just as secure as any other system that someone might recommend to you.
This week I’ll have the control unit for testing, along with the remote control which doubles as a locator. I’ll give a thorough description of how everything looks and works.
You know what it’s like when someone’s new to the subject. I really like the concept behind Fibaro – just pop the modules into the junction box, set it up so it works a treat, and that’s it.
On the other hand, I’m building from scratch. So I don’t need to tear down any walls. I’m looking for a comparison of these systems. Because as I understand it:
-/ Homiq, Maxwell, eHouse and the like – (a note on Homiq: finding any useful information on their website is next to impossible Too much waffle and not enough substance) - I lay electrical cables and, in parallel, a computer cable to the switches. I run the whole lot to the distribution board. Loads of cables. But no interference, no Wi-Fi. The whole thing works with the alarm. The solutions differ in terms of control and probably the control unit...
-/ Fibaro – I plug the modules into the junction box and set them up. It works with the alarm – but, as I understand from the above, not in the same way as in wired systems.
I’d be grateful for a useful link comparing the different solutions My head’s spinning
It all works in much the same way. The only difference is the interface. As for interference, there’s really no need to worry about it, as each device acts as a repeater (i.e. as another access point). The alarm can, of course, be integrated. It depends on what you want to do. You connect an expander to the control unit and control whatever you like. Have a look at the House website – they have lots of solutions there. There’s quite a big difference between the control units, but only Fibaro offers features such as user location tracking and a Polish-language interface. The price of dimmers and switches is lower than the competition’s, and these are the items you’ll be buying the most of. Of course, I’d like to emphasise once again that this is just my subjective opinion, and I may be wrong in thinking that only Fibaro offers this.
Well, to be realistic, what scope of work should I be considering? A house with a converted loft.
Ground floor: living room, kitchen with pantry, toilet, guest room and garage with boiler room
Upper floor: 3 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms, laundry room. Garden: Garden lighting – 4 sections, sprinkler system – also 2–4 sections Installations:
- roller blinds on the roof-slope windows x6 - Venetian blind on the large window in the living room - condensing boiler - heat-recovery ventilation + glycol-based ground-source heat exchanger
So, as I was thinking about such a system, the following features seem sensible to me: Economy: -/ switching off devices in standby mode (TVs, radios, computers, etc.) when leaving the house – i.e. specific sockets or socket strips
-/ lowering the temperature in rooms at night and whilst away – I reckon I can sort this out with the central heating system myself, but what about integration with, say, an alarm system? -/ lowering the blinds to prevent surfaces from overheating
-/ watering the garden depending on the weather (rain, temperature, etc.)
Security: -/ Switching off appliances such as: coffee machine, hob, oven, kettle, iron -/ Integration with an alarm system – the ability to arm and disarm it remotely -/ Simulating presence at home -/ Gas and sleep-inducing gas detectors
-/ answering the intercom remotely via your phone?
Convenience:
-/ opening the main gate, side gate and garage door -/ switching off all lights when leaving or at night -/ Scenes – but I’m stuck for ideas here too. Does anyone actually use scene-based solutions at all? I can see the point of ‘guests’ scenes (garden lighting, switching on ventilation, turning off the watering system, living room lighting) and ‘arriving home’ scenes (driveway lighting, lights in the hall, the hallway and, for example, the kitchen). But anything else?
Control via an iPad/iPod or Android device would be an added bonus.
What else do you use? Perhaps one of the above is completely pointless?
Economy: -/ switching off devices in standby mode (TVs, radios, computers, etc.) when leaving the house – i.e. specific sockets or multi-socket units
-/ lowering the temperature in rooms at night and whilst away – I reckon I can sort this out with the boiler itself, but what about integration with, say, the alarm system? -/ lowering the blinds to prevent surfaces from overheating
-/ watering the garden depending on the weather (rain, temperature, etc.)
I have no affiliation whatsoever with Fibaro or their competitors.
In my opinion... From an economic point of view, installing such a system doesn’t make much sense. The savings you hope to achieve are negligible and are unlikely to exceed the cost of the system. What’s more, the whole thing uses quite a lot of electricity, so running it won’t be free.
You’ll get much more value for money by investing in a heat pump, for example.
Mr Pawel, a friend is asking about Z-Wave-based systems, and you’re telling him to install a heat pump. Mate, go to a distributor – they have showrooms where you can see how it all works. Check out a few companies and form your own opinion on the matter. As you can see from the forum replies, you won’t get an objective answer here. Every system has its pros and cons.
).
times 720 hours a month gives us 166kWh 
