Need some help fellow controls guys? Customer looking for some feature_benefit analysis of the JCI FX40 and Echelon's i.lon100 e3. Figured best place to start is to ask the experts, guys who configure and commission it everyday.
??? I don't believe that to be exactly true. I have an ilon and it is my front end.Ilon100 is just a ip server for your lon devices you still need a front end like symetre.
OOPS I facked up. I forgot that Ilons do have some abilities beyond just IP but a jace (FX-40) is still way more powerful but initial training and software purchase may be a consideration.??? I don't believe that to be exactly true. I have an ilon and it is my front end.
This should be interesting![]()
You're talking apples and oranges.Need some help fellow controls guys? Customer looking for some feature_benefit analysis of the JCI FX40 and Echelon's i.lon100 e3. Figured best place to start is to ask the experts, guys who configure and commission it everyday.
Same controller different licenses. Should cost about the same.That is ax versus fx.Honeywell is ax JCI is FX both tridium both owned by honeywell.If youre looking to integrate LON controllers I would go with Honeywell Webs instead of FX. It will cost a little more but will work a little better. An i.lon isn't a bad choice but I don't have much experience with them.
I know, I've worked on both and like Honeywell's better.Same controller different licenses. Should cost about the same.That is ax versus fx.Honeywell is ax JCI is FX both tridium both owned by honeywell.
What did you like better? I also have worked on both. I think that they are about equal though the Honeywell controllers are easier to integrate into the jace than the JCI controllers.I know, I've worked on both and like Honeywell's better.
More money and more money, these two are similar.Same controller different licenses. Should cost about the same.That is ax versus fx.Honeywell is ax JCI is FX both tridium both owned by honeywell.
I guess the main thing I like more about Honeywell's is the way they use wizards or can program controllers from the Jace. I think they would be more equal if JCI would use similar functions. I don't think they will though.What did you like better? I also have worked on both. I think that they are about equal though the Honeywell controllers are easier to integrate into the jace than the JCI controllers.
Yes I agree 100%. I take it you have Hutchy's wizards. They are really good.I guess the main thing I like more about Honeywell's is the way they use wizards or can program controllers from the Jace. I think they would be more equal if JCI would use similar functions. I don't think they will though.
As far as controllers go, I think JCI is better hands down. They are a little harder to work with but much more flexible.
The FX-40 or FX-20 or (( FX60 ( which are far superior to 40's BTW)) Would be the choice if you have existing JCI N2 devices to integrate.Need some help fellow controls guys? Customer looking for some feature_benefit analysis of the JCI FX40 and Echelon's i.lon100 e3. Figured best place to start is to ask the experts, guys who configure and commission it everyday.![]()
I recently tried to load the wizards from the WEBS into the into the JCI workbench. NO GO. They say it's a branding issue. I also have an associate who used Lonspec initially on the controllers and went back to them with the wizards. He said had to replace at least three controllers and several are still iffy.I guess the main thing I like more about Honeywell's is the way they use wizards or can program controllers from the Jace. I think they would be more equal if JCI would use similar functions. I don't think they will though.
As far as controllers go, I think JCI is better hands down. They are a little harder to work with but much more flexible.
Ya, its stupid. They just lock themselves out of selling hardware.I recently tried to load the wizards from the WEBS into the into the JCI workbench. NO GO. They say it's a branding issue. I also have an associate who used Lonspec initially on the controllers and went back to them with the wizards. He said had to replace at least three controllers and several are still iffy.
I think the WEBS wizards are restricted to only work with the WEBS tools.I recently tried to load the wizards from the WEBS into the into the JCI workbench. NO GO. They say it's a branding issue. I also have an associate who used Lonspec initially on the controllers and went back to them with the wizards. He said had to replace at least three controllers and several are still iffy.
He thinks they (XL10) maybe still salvageable. He used the wizards off site. He realized he seriously screwed something up after using the wizards; it was a good drive to the site so he took some controllers with him. He said something about reverse polarity on the DIs or DOs. I was laughing too hard, he so too much into the remote thing, I'm always telling him he needs to physically get out to the jobs a little more.Ya, its stupid. They just lock themselves out of selling hardware.
Distech/Voyant cross all branding lines. Plus its good stuff. Win Win!
How did he smoke any controllers doing that?