Actually, this would make an interesting topic. What features of the WiFi model are actually worth upgrading for? A lot of the new features could easily be implemented via an external programme. But the per zone optimisation is such a brilliant feature that was dropped in the WiFi model.
Evohome firmware 02.00.19.31 Beta Trial - Exclusive for Automated Home Members
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by mikey8156 View PostI will be staying with my non wifi version as I would miss room optimal start very much.
It was taken out on the insistence of a UI usability 'expert' because it is simpler for people to program times and removes the confusion of what time to enter, either the start or 'at temperature' time. We did however ask users if any actually used different setting for different rooms and we had a few discussions but didnt get a strong argument for it other than - it used to be possible.
Just to be clear optimisation is not a single heatup time, there is one for every zone, and each calculates its own heatup rate after installation and constantly re-learns this over the heating season. The actual time a zone heats for is based on individual measured temperature and the zones next scheduled temperature.
Regards AtMResideo employee. Comments are personal, and likely to get a hard stare from Rameses
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Andy the Minion View Post@mikey I'm interested to know what makes optimisation something you would want in one room but not in another, I have heard the request before but i dont think ever the use reasons? Regards AtM
As I have said before I have found optimisation is not worth it. Tried it several times but it burns more fuel and never did seem to learn the time it takes to warm up.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Andy the Minion View Post@mikey I'm interested to know what makes optimisation something you would want in one room but not in another, I have heard the request before but i dont think ever the use reasons?
It was taken out on the insistence of a UI usability 'expert' because it is simpler for people to program times and removes the confusion of what time to enter, either the start or 'at temperature' time. We did however ask users if any actually used different setting for different rooms and we had a few discussions but didnt get a strong argument for it other than - it used to be possible.
Just to be clear optimisation is not a single heatup time, there is one for every zone, and each calculates its own heatup rate after installation and constantly re-learns this over the heating season. The actual time a zone heats for is based on individual measured temperature and the zones next scheduled temperature.
Regards AtM
Comment
-
-
The case for room by room optimisation
Originally posted by Andy the Minion View Post@mikey I'm interested to know what makes optimisation something you would want in one room but not in another, I have heard the request before but i dont think ever the use reasons?
It was taken out on the insistence of a UI usability 'expert' because it is simpler for people to program times and removes the confusion of what time to enter, either the start or 'at temperature' time. We did however ask users if any actually used different setting for different rooms and we had a few discussions but didnt get a strong argument for it other than - it used to be possible.
Just to be clear optimisation is not a single heatup time, there is one for every zone, and each calculates its own heatup rate after installation and constantly re-learns this over the heating season. The actual time a zone heats for is based on individual measured temperature and the zones next scheduled temperature.
Regards AtM
I can walk in and simply turn on a convector heater to bring the temperature up and it's maintained throughout the day as I'm in and out. Optimisation would start to heat ridiculously early in winter.
I'm effectively running this room in a different way to the rest of the house and I find that a useful facility.
I know that I could achieve a similar effect by having optimisation on and deferring the start to 10:00am or so, but that would work in winter but be less appropriate when things got warmer.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by G4RHL View PostPerhaps it is no more than a user wants a room up to temperature by the time it is to be used but then as said one simply adjusts the schedule. Alternatively some rooms may warm up at different rates and optimisation could be useful for that to compensate for each room.
As I have said before I have found optimisation is not worth it. Tried it several times but it burns more fuel and never did seem to learn the time it takes to warm up.Last edited by SteveP; 26 April 2020, 02:00 PM.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by paulockenden View PostI can't understand this being a UX problem - the option was (if I remember correctly) buried deep inside the installer menus, rather than being exposed to the great unwashed in the normal settings screens.
There's all kinds of "your gran wouldn't understand it" stuff in there.
P.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Andy the Minion View PostWe weren’t sure this was actually a bug but had a look at the action and have dropped frost protect out of the load scaling
Load scaling is complex and it is difficult to both scale what I suspect will be a zone with a low learned fuzzy demand and that is also a very small part of the system. We saw this happening in our internal testing, however it is also hard to then decide that a zone cannot go below a certain heat demand % because that will override temperature control if we are not careful. [note there is a massive difference between rooms in the total population, for one zone in one house 2% might be the fuzzy value for a given temperature while another it is 90% and we can only discover this after installation]
What we have done to overcome this was to build some slow integral action into the zone scaling control. It won’t be perfect if you are watching the zone closely based on a single manual action, but because load scaling is also an adaptive process in addition to a feedback response it will also modify behaviour slowly for this zone and the zones scale will increase.
And a normal end user who turns their bathroom radiator up to 22C when the room is 18C who finds the radiator stone cold and boiler still completely off 30 minutes later is going to be phoning their installer to come in and fix the system or take it away. This might not be what you want to hear but it is the cold hard truth. People will think the system is broken when it starts behaving like this.
There needs to be some realistic limit to how far the system is willing to scale down the load of a zone. Scaling a 100% load down to 1% or 3% is taking things far too far when the boiler won't even fire until a load of 11% is requested. Under these conditions the zone can never meet it's target. If it had a scaling limit of say 4x or 5x (100% load scaled down to 20-25%) that would be far more reasonable.
I've set my system to partial load scaling now, however while it reduces the scaling for a given situation it still seems to come up with some rediculously high scaling factors and once again I was in the situation today where I turned the bathroom radiator up from 20C to 23C (ambient 20C) had a shower, by the time I came out of the shower the radiator was still stone cold and the boiler flow temperature was about 38C as it had barely fired. (Although strangely the boiler heat demand was shown as 42%)
I want to like load scaling and it does definitely reduce overshoots and improve temperature regulation when multiple zones have some demand, unfortunately it has pathalogical behaviour when only a single zone is demanding heat where even turning up a radiator several degrees won't bring on the boiler, something that could be easily solved by setting a more realistic limit to the maximum scaling factor. Sadly I think I'll ultimately end up turning load scaling off due to this pathalogical behaviour with single zones, partly because I don't want grief from my spouse over it.
BTW I'm trying to reply to your PM about logs but your inbox is full and won't take any more messages.Last edited by DBMandrake; 26 April 2020, 04:14 PM.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by SteveP View PostFor me I have a few rads that are oversized and only need to start up to produce a comfortable warmth and so i don't want optimisation, and then have a few rooms that take longer to heat (Mainly bathrooms with towel rads) and so benefit from optimisation. When I had the non-wifi version with individual optimisation that supported the scenario. Now with the "upgraded" wifi version I effectively have to mentally alter the oversized rads schedule to compensate for the optimisation I need for the undersized !! I would love individual optimisation to be brought back
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by kevinsmart View PostThe system learns the pre-heat time for each zone. Do you not find that your zones with oversized rads start heating later, and the others earlier? I find it works really well.
Comment
-
-
Just curious but with the weather now all over the place in terms of evohome recorded outside temperature vs the "feel" temperature and the variability day by day and during the day, how are people using these new features? I've ended up turning them off and reverting to the suggested "custom / summer" setting leaving out the bathroom zones to keep those towels toasty seems to be working a treat at this moment. Today the outside temp is showing as 7c and yet it feels sooo pleasant outside and no heating required. I am not saying these new features are not potentially beneficial but wonder if they just solve a problem that we didn't know we had or a problem that is so personal, no automated solution can 100% satisfy everyone? I do though worry as DBMandrake commented that there are new features that are so deeply embedded and result in curious system behaviour that a user may believe is the system at fault. Whilst I like the system to "help me" if I want heat then I WANT HEAT! I don't want the system saying "well you don't really need heat so I will override the user" - lol. Not knocking the enhancements but as a software designer/developer am wondering if the changes are a "step too far"?Last edited by SteveP; 28 April 2020, 09:34 AM.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by SteveP View PostJust curious but with the weather now all over the place in terms of evohome recorded outside temperature vs the "feel" temperature and the variability day by day and during the day, how are people using these new features? I've ended up turning them off and reverting to the suggested "custom / summer" setting leaving out the bathroom zones to keep those towels toasty seems to be working a treat at this moment. Today the outside temp is showing as 7c and yet it feels sooo pleasant outside and no heating required. I am not saying these new features are not potentially beneficial but wonder if they just solve a problem that we didn't know we had or a problem that is so personal, no automated solution can 100% satisfy everyone? I do though worry as DBMandrake commented that there are new features that are so deeply embedded and result in curious system behaviour that a user may believe is the system at fault. Whilst I like the system to "help me" if I want heat then I WANT HEAT! I don't want the system saying "well you don't really need heat so I will override the user" - lol. Not knocking the enhancements but as a software designer/developer am wondering if the changes are a "step too far"?
I guess many people on this forum have a technical bent and many have considerable experience in system design and implementation. I’m essentially just an observer in this process as I have the non-wifi model that satisfies my requirements very well. Optimisation works brilliantly in my experience and I appreciate being able to tie into IFTTT for geofencing.
I’m not fully conversant with the differences between my version of the controller and the current version but I haven’t seen anything in this thread that would make me want to upgrade. In particular, I’d have misgivings with a system that used an Internet temperature source as a component in its operation, living, as I do, in a village that encompasses a flat plateau and a deep valley.
It seems to me that Honeywell have a problem with this product in that they can’t decide whether to market it to end users (as many of their current competitors do), or to the trade.
With the changes being incorporated, quite apart from the perceived system faults that DBMandrake and SteveP have mentioned, this will add to the marketing challenges as any likely adoptee is going to want to know in some detail how it works.
And it's just got a lot more complicated.
Comment
-
Comment