james.wilson Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 As i said before i reakon a gal can pretty much do anything on site, however i concede it cant do redundant panels, cached max / dcm etc. But im looking forward to your list to see how id program it to get round the limititrations. But I also concede depending on the list that 'getting around' isnt better. securitywarehouse Security Supplies from Security Warehouse Trade Members please contact us for your TSI vetted trade discount. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goncall Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 To make life easy, why don't you tell me why you think it's all that and then I can explain why in reality this best in class halo is undeserved. you tell me,you have all the answers,granted your pretty hot on software,way more than me,but you look too deep into it,take any panel and a software man could pull it apart,galaxy is top of the tree for me as an engineer,its has software issues like any thing has,but all updated to fix,galaxy has been around for years,it still does what i want it too,. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matthew.brough Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 you tell me,you have all the answers,granted your pretty hot on software,way more than me,but you look too deep into it,take any panel and a software man could pull it apart,galaxy is top of the tree for me as an engineer,its has software issues like any thing has,but all updated to fix,galaxy has been around for years,it still does what i want it too,. Correct, I do have the answers because I am looking at it more from the point of view as it is easy to program. So in effect what your saying is you like it because it is the product for you and you buy it because you like it rather than looking at is it the best thing for the job. I can understand that as its you getting the calls from the customer. You mention it has issues but have all been updated to fix. There are currently over 40 bugs over 3 years old that are awaiting to be fixed. Question. Although galaxy has been around for years (not sure of the relevance or if this indicates it's better because its old) but that doesn't change from the fact it's been bodged in many ways. My confirm intruder not working is a good example. Although the panel was easy to program, if it doesn't do its core function then thats an issue. See attached log As i said before i reakon a gal can pretty much do anything on site, however i concede it cant do redundant panels, cached max / dcm etc. But im looking forward to your list to see how id program it to get round the limititrations. But I also concede depending on the list that 'getting around' isnt better. I'm on with it. Been a bit busy. Don't get me wrong, issues with kit per say I'm not upset about it. Look at Texecom for example. Couple of issues and rather than saying **** you we are the mighty Texecom so live with it, they put their hands up and fixed it. I've no issue with this. Honeywell have a list as long as my arm of faults, some very serious and just say oh well we are Honeywell so what you gunna do about it. **** off. matt you bang on about this honeywell inovation award you got,then slate them,is it just a case of sour grapes as they didnt bend over and take what you asked being a new small company I don't bang on about it at all. Question for you. As you neither work for us or Honeywell, how do you know what requests we do or don't make of Honeywell? www.securitywarehouse.co.uk/catalog/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
9651 Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 forgive me, but when commissioning this gal on site, was it not commissioned in real-time, ie trigger x2 detectors to prove confirmed went? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matthew.brough Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 forgive me, but when commissioning this gal on site, was it not commissioned in real-time, ie trigger x2 detectors to prove confirmed went? Yes it was. We haven't got to the bottom of this yet. All the circuits were on line 1 that were tested (I forget the exact number but it was over 80) but these zones were on line 3 that failed. Shouldn't make the blindest bit of difference as same alarm group, no entry route etc but this is one of my issues with the panel. Problems only occur under a certain set of conditions which usually means when you find out, there has been a serious problem and harder to find. Failed RRI's are another mystery. Over 6 months this panel failed to do 22 remote maintenance checks for no apparant reason. See below www.securitywarehouse.co.uk/catalog/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goncall Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 maybe its a software issue at your end not the panel,id hazard a guess your playing with honeywells software and they dont like it,for a small company you find some problems which just relate to you.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matthew.brough Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 Another issue that nearly bit us through yet another failure to operate is in the protocol of the ethernet module, it is perfectly possible for it to stop talking to the panel but not report a comms failure. We had some Emizons where the comms had gone down to around 6% and no signals were passing through but neither the panel or Emzion reported an issue because there was just enough traffic to report as ok, despite to comms passing. This is why we enabled the digi test calls over Ethernet so that if it happened again, at least it would only be 6 hours before we got to find out as it has to call in every 6 hours. Guys don't get me wrong, I do not have it in for Honeywell but hopefully some of these issues I've shared give a clue as to why I am not it's number 1 fan. maybe its a software issue at your end not the panel,id hazard a guess your playing with honeywells software and they dont like it,for a small company you find some problems which just relate to you.. How can it be a software issue at my end when it is the PANEL that sends the confirmed signal. We don't have special firmware in their panels, their firmware is their firmware so do explain how I could manipulate it without the source code to the panel? How are these issues unique to me. Do other installers not need confirmed alarm signals or RRIs or would you class those as flash features that no one uses? www.securitywarehouse.co.uk/catalog/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
james.wilson Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 Its always been a consideration of mine. Is full test really a full test. ie galaxy classic 4.00 to 4.06 (iirc) would not confirm period, if it was on prox arm/disarm and a code had not been entered in that 18(again iirc) arms/disarms. Was fixed in 4.07 But all of them passed full test (v4.00-4.07) as it was armed with a code (ie engineer code) it was only really tested by fob with a full arm as that was its real world environment. While we need to make it as simple as we can for a service engineer to test (else it wont be done) it does need to be a genuine test. BTW v4 galaxy software was the begining of the end of my affair with gal securitywarehouse Security Supplies from Security Warehouse Trade Members please contact us for your TSI vetted trade discount. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matthew.brough Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 Its always been a consideration of mine. Is full test really a full test. ie galaxy classic 4.00 to 4.06 (iirc) would not confirm period, if it was on prox arm/disarm and a code had not been entered in that 18(again iirc) arms/disarms. Was fixed in 4.07 But all of them passed full test (v4.00-4.07) as it was armed with a code (ie engineer code) it was only really tested by fob with a full arm as that was its real world environment. While we need to make it as simple as we can for a service engineer to test (else it wont be done) it does need to be a genuine test. BTW v4 galaxy software was the begining of the end of my affair with gal I remember those days of v4 headaches. Remember changing all those eproms. God knows what that must have cost them. www.securitywarehouse.co.uk/catalog/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goncall Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 Another issue that nearly bit us through yet another failure to operate is in the protocol of the ethernet module, it is perfectly possible for it to stop talking to the panel but not report a comms failure. We had some Emizons where the comms had gone down to around 6% and no signals were passing through but neither the panel or Emzion reported an issue because there was just enough traffic to report as ok, despite to comms passing. This is why we enabled the digi test calls over Ethernet so that if it happened again, at least it would only be 6 hours before we got to find out as it has to call in every 6 hours. Guys don't get me wrong, I do not have it in for Honeywell but hopefully some of these issues I've shared give a clue as to why I am not it's number 1 fan. How can it be a software issue at my end when it is the PANEL that sends the confirmed signal. We don't have special firmware in their panels, their firmware is their firmware so do explain how I could manipulate it without the source code to the panel? How are these issues unique to me. Do other installers not need confirmed alarm signals or RRIs or would you class those as flash features that no one uses? my point was for a small co with few gals as you dont use them,you get an awful lot of problems,maybe your unlucky,on a side note its ironic that lord archer who your lovingly pictured with wouldnt be allowed to work in our game with his record... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.