Page 30 of 59 FirstFirst ... 20252627282930313233343540 ... LastLast
Results 291 to 300 of 587

Thread: Evohome firmware 02.00.19.31 Beta Trial - Exclusive for Automated Home Members

  1. #291
    Automated Home Ninja
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    431

    Default

    Out of interest, is there any new hardware/updates coming soon?

  2. #292
    Automated Home Legend
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    2,130

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mtmcgavock View Post
    Out of interest, is there any new hardware/updates coming soon?
    Do you really expect a company like Honeywell to pre-announce upcoming hardware that would replace the current generation Evohome ?

    The "Osbourne effect" springs to mind...

  3. #293
    Automated Home Sr Member Andy the Minion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    80

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Andy the Minion View Post
    @guyank, Im not sure about that, I will check. There have been times with previous versions where a recalculation is missed when coming out of manual modes
    @guyank Thanks for the MAC id. We had a look at the system and as best we can tell the 5°C are all being caused by system off quick actions with reversions to Eco or Day off a few minutes later. The changes appear to be from the App.
    As a general point, the ‘big’ quick actions in a large system do generate a lot of Rf traffic and especially when they come in quick succession there will be sp messages sent in all directions to all zones, with repeats and answers with demand messages from all the zones. This is prime territory for Rf comms classes and missed messages. The system will recover but if you are paying close attention you may notice zones that stay in a previous state until things quieten down the regular message repeats allow it to catch up again
    Resideo employee. Comments are personal, and likely to get a hard stare from Rameses

  4. #294
    Automated Home Legend
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    2,130

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Andy the Minion View Post
    @DBMandrake The answer to 1 is Yes and yes. We were aware of some bugs and had already fixed some at time of release, these missed the cut for internal testing so could not be included in your release. Others we were still working on and will be included in the next version.
    The decision was taken to release the current version in the knowledge that we have a second release coming up fast so we were a bit more inclined to let known bugs ride if they were thought to be low risk for (please don’t take this the wrong way) normal users.
    Hi Andy,

    Can you confirm whether the load scaling bug I reported earlier in the thread (with load scaling preventing frost protection working) is a known bug or has been addressed (or at least entered into a bug tracker) in internal builds yet ?

    I like the concept of the load scaling a lot and I think it's possibly the single most important feature of the new set of features, but as currently implemented in the Beta it causes some pretty crazy and downright non-sensical behaviour sometimes.

    A good example is today - a warm day so I've set a custom action to turn off all zones. I've then manually turned the bathroom radiator up to 22C while the reported temperature is 18C and...... nothing after a few minutes, boiler still off. When I check the system summary page I see that Load Scaling has gone off it's mind, and is only sending a 1% boiler heat demand when the zone is 4C below set point and the zone itself is asking for a 100% heat demand:



    Five minutes later the demand sent to the boiler increased to 3% which is still not the minimum 10% required to fire the boiler. It's now 30 minutes after I turned up the set point to 4 degrees above ambient and the boiler has still not fired and the heat demand sent to the boiler is still sitting on 3%. Clearly this is not how it's intended to be.

    I understand that the load scaling is meant to adaptively scale down the heat demand for each zone by learning the characteristics of the zone, however if it's scaling down the demand from 100% to 1% or even 3% in some circumstances it's just not working properly. There should be some sanity check on how much it's willing to scale the demand by.

    As a test I changed the Load Scaling setting from Full to partial and in the same circumstances the boiler demand went up to 16% - which would be enough to fire the boiler but is still rather low under the circumstances.

    Can you perhaps go into a little more detail about how load scaling should work, on a more technical basis ? Also I find the description of the full and partial setting in the device a bit confusing and perhaps even backwards - as it suggests that a well insulated house should use the partial setting, but that doesn't make sense as the partial setting seems to scale the load down less - thus runs the boiler more.

    Since the full setting seems to be far too aggressive I'm going to give the partial setting a try for a few days.
    On point 2, we really hadn’t intended for the forum to be a pool of unpaid software test engineers, but do very much appreciate the effort you and others have put into this trial. Our normal practice is to put only finished products out for external field trial, with (hopefully) all the significant bugs ironed out. We are reviewing this and may be allowed to push to a limited number of sites at an earlier stage for the next release.
    Regards,
    AtM
    All I'm really suggesting is that the testers who are currently subscribed to the beta get the release candidate version pushed to their devices a couple of weeks earlier than the general rollout, this gives time for Honeywell to get feedback from the testers that the problems that were reported during the trial were indeed confirmed fixed in the field and that no new showstoppers have been introduced.

    When I'm fixing bugs that have been reported to me unless they're trivally obvious facepalm bugs I usually don't consider them truly fixed until at least some of the people who originally reported the problem have confirmed it fixed in their installation, especially if its a problem that has complex interactions or is difficult to reproduce because the test environment which triggered the problem is not easy to reproduce. It's all too easy to think that a bug has been fixed but overlook something due to the local test environment not fully simulating the environment of the bug reporter. Been there done that...

    I very much prefer to get confirmation from the original bug reporter(s) that a proposed fix actually does what I think it does before it gets sent out to everyone..
    Last edited by DBMandrake; 24th April 2020 at 02:40 PM.

  5. #295
    Automated Home Sr Member Andy the Minion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    80

    Default

    @DBMandrake The answer to 1 is Yes and yes. We were aware of some bugs and had already fixed some at time of release, these missed the cut for internal testing so could not be included in your release. Others we were still working on and will be included in the next version.
    The decision was taken to release the current version in the knowledge that we have a second release coming up fast so we were a bit more inclined to let known bugs ride if they were thought to be low risk for (please don’t take this the wrong way) normal users.
    Hi Andy,

    Can you confirm whether the load scaling bug I reported earlier in the thread (with load scaling preventing frost protection working) is a known bug or has been addressed (or at least entered into a bug tracker) in internal builds yet ?

    We 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

    I like the concept of the load scaling a lot and I think it's possibly the single most important feature of the new set of features, but as currently implemented in the Beta it causes some pretty crazy and downright non-sensical behaviour sometimes.

    A good example is today - a warm day so I've set a custom action to turn off all zones. I've then manually turned the bathroom radiator up to 22C while the reported temperature is 18C and...... nothing after a few minutes, boiler still off. When I check the system summary page I see that Load Scaling has gone off it's mind, and is only sending a 1% boiler heat demand when the zone is 4C below set point and the zone itself is asking for a 100% heat demand:

    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.


    Five minutes later the demand sent to the boiler increased to 3% which is still not the minimum 10% required to fire the boiler. It's now 30 minutes after I turned up the set point to 4 degrees above ambient and the boiler has still not fired and the heat demand sent to the boiler is still sitting on 3%. Clearly this is not how it's intended to be.

    I understand that the load scaling is meant to adaptively scale down the heat demand for each zone by learning the characteristics of the zone, however if it's scaling down the demand from 100% to 1% or even 3% in some circumstances it's just not working properly. There should be some sanity check on how much it's willing to scale the demand by.

    As a test I changed the Load Scaling setting from Full to partial and in the same circumstances the boiler demand went up to 16% - which would be enough to fire the boiler but is still rather low under the circumstances.

    Can you perhaps go into a little more detail about how load scaling should work, on a more technical basis ? Also I find the description of the full and partial setting in the device a bit confusing and perhaps even backwards - as it suggests that a well insulated house should use the partial setting, but that doesn't make sense as the partial setting seems to scale the load down less - thus runs the boiler more.

    I’m not too keen on explain some of the technical operation, the knowledge was too hard learned. The full setting allows for outside temperature in the algorithm if the room is not insulated to a near passive standard, partial means outside temperature is of reduced effect and it is ignored

    On point 2, we really hadn’t intended for the forum to be a pool of unpaid software test engineers, but do very much appreciate the effort you and others have put into this trial. Our normal practice is to put only finished products out for external field trial, with (hopefully) all the significant bugs ironed out. We are reviewing this and may be allowed to push to a limited number of sites at an earlier stage for the next release.
    Regards,
    AtM
    All I'm really suggesting is that the testers who are currently subscribed to the beta get the release candidate version pushed to their devices a couple of weeks earlier than the general rollout, this gives time for Honeywell to get feedback from the testers that the problems that were reported during the trial were indeed confirmed fixed in the field and that no new showstoppers have been introduced.

    When I'm fixing bugs that have been reported to me, unless they're trivally obvious facepalm bugs I usually don't consider them truly fixed until at least some of the people who originally reported the problem have confirmed it fixed in their installation, especially if its a problem that has complex interactions or is difficult to reproduce because the test environment which triggered the problem is not easy to reproduce. It's all too easy to think that a bug has been fixed but overlook something due to the local test environment not fully simulating the environment of the bug reporter. Been there done that...

    I hear this!

    Regards AtM
    Resideo employee. Comments are personal, and likely to get a hard stare from Rameses

  6. #296
    Automated Home Sr Member Andy the Minion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    80

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DBMandrake View Post
    Do you really expect a company like Honeywell to pre-announce upcoming hardware that would replace the current generation Evohome ?

    The "Osbourne effect" springs to mind...
    I do hope that isn’t a reference to biting the heads off avian mammals and catching something nasty in the process?
    Resideo employee. Comments are personal, and likely to get a hard stare from Rameses

  7. #297
    Automated Home Jr Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Posts
    14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Andy the Minion View Post
    @wilfman We generally don’t like rolling firmware back. Any new configs tend not to play nicely when they get pushed backwards to a firmware that doesn’t support them, but it is always tested and we didn’t see it cause a problem. I think there are also good cyber security reasons for not doing this as well but as I am a combustion engineer that goes over my head . I was asked if we should roll you back and I said yes with my fingers crossed – sorry, my bad.
    AtM
    No worries Andy. I do appreciate the engagement with the community for feedback on the Beta and in hindsight, I should have probably just stuck with the Beta. Totally agree that rollback is never a good scenario. Now of course of customers had the ability to back up and restore their configs?!

  8. #298
    Automated Home Jr Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Posts
    14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bruce_miranda View Post
    Nothing in the BETA has been bad enough to need a rollback, especially not in this season when the demand on CH is lower. The HW priority not being selectable is probably the biggest thing that does need fixing. All the other "features" can be turned off, so if they don't work, no one is forced to use them.
    You are totally right, lesson learnt from my side :-)

  9. #299
    Automated Home Ninja
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    431

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DBMandrake View Post
    Do you really expect a company like Honeywell to pre-announce upcoming hardware that would replace the current generation Evohome ?

    The "Osbourne effect" springs to mind...
    I was more thinking of just an updated Evohome panel But I guess software updates keep it current.

  10. #300
    Automated Home Jr Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Poole, UK
    Posts
    33

    Default

    I will be staying with my non wifi version as I would miss room optimal start very much.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •