yeah as above i think it copies straight to the memory, possibly because the flash hasnt the room for 2 copies of firmware

1 hour ago, james.wilson said:

yeah as above i think it copies straight to the memory, possibly because the flash hasnt the room for 2 copies of firmware

I didn't think hkc does this? It loads the update , then programmes the panel no?

2 hours ago, al-yeti said:

I didn't think hkc does this? It loads the update , then programmes the panel no?

correct the hkc panel downloads the firmware image checks it then overwrites. So if it fails half way through etc it ignores the upload.

I think the texecom does a direct write so if it fails half way through it bricks.

Other gear is like that too it depends how much storage space is available and id say the firmware file on the texecom is larger than the hkc as the panels are more than 240 circuits

2 hours ago, james.wilson said:

correct the hkc panel downloads the firmware image checks it then overwrites. So if it fails half way through etc it ignores the upload.

I think the texecom does a direct write so if it fails half way through it bricks.

Other gear is like that too it depends how much storage space is available and id say the firmware file on the texecom is larger than the hkc as the panels are more than 240 circuits

But then texecom always had firmware problems lol 

 

Just kidding 

 

Poor design to allow it write on the fly 

It's not a customer facing interface so I don't see it as an issue.

If done via Smartcom and engineers Cloud account, you avoid this issue as well.

2 hours ago, sixwheeledbeast said:

It's not a customer facing interface so I don't see it as an issue.

If done via Smartcom and engineers Cloud account, you avoid this issue as well.

But your swb = special wintex build

 

?

 

I sure Mr H and the rest could have some better meanings .... Lol

7 hours ago, al-yeti said:

But then texecom always had firmware problems lol 

 

Just kidding 

 

Poor design to allow it write on the fly 

no not poor design just different ages and ways of doing it.

you cant just write of all the gear for 1 reason.

same issues with gals for instance. they afaik dont offer remote flashing.

look at all things from that era, redcares and old (pre ww1) couldnt be upgraded remotely. eaton i think can but not scanny 9800 etc

6 minutes ago, james.wilson said:

no not poor design just different ages and ways of doing it.

you cant just write of all the gear for 1 reason.

same issues with gals for instance. they afaik dont offer remote flashing.

look at all things from that era, redcares and old (pre ww1) couldnt be upgraded remotely. eaton i think can but not scanny 9800 etc

I understand, I didn't think latest panels from texecom should do this tho but anyways