View Poll Results: design of the EcoTech module

Voters
42. You may not vote on this poll
  • internal expansion card

    12 28.57%
  • external module for RS232

    4 9.52%
  • external module for PAB

    26 61.90%
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 23

Thread: How to design the EcoTech module

  1. #11
    Join Date
    20.02.2009
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    127

    Default

    I would suggest PAB first then create a PAB expansion card for the PII that will work with single devices (Or power bars)

  2. #12
    Join Date
    17.07.2009
    Posts
    85

    Default

    My thoughts are inline with everyone else so far. Backwards compatibility is always nice and will make for greater product sales etc. But there is nothing worse than a product feeling like it could have been better and so if its not possible to bring it to its full potencial on the PII then I'd plump for PAB product.

    As said the wireless range of the vortechs is more than a little overstated in the specs and so whichever option having a remote aerial/unit will be neccessary to get it within optimum range of the pumps.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    20.02.2009
    Posts
    40

    Default

    Can you make an external box with both PAB and and RS232 port? That way you could select which interface works better for you.

    I have a P3 so, I am all about the PAB and am very excited about this product.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    17.08.2009
    Posts
    132

    Default

    Personally, I think PAB will be the interface of choice for several reasons:

    1.) If the PII cant use it anyway, no need to force users to use one of our limited expansions slots or RS232 port

    2.) PAB allows users to wire modules farther away from the profilux, which in the case of wireless control of the Vortechs is very important. Limited wireless range might severely impact the performance of the module if we cant get it close enough to the vortech controllers.

    3.) Many, many users already complain about having to use their RS232 interface for AI control as it limits the ability to use a View II or Serial connection to a PC while controlling lights. If we have yet another device that uses RS232 it may force people into buying more expansion modules that take up valuable space that could be better served for more L ports, or an extra Ph module etc.

    So in short.. PAB all the way. Its a wonderful interface, and would be nice to have more devices that work with it.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    19.02.2009
    Posts
    39

    Default internal card

    I have read all the opinions so far. All good points for sure. My vote would be for a internal card. If my thoughts are incorrect, Mathais please enlighten me.
    To allow everyone the Vortech control option the internal card would be best, IMO. Using the RS would not work for AI users and View II users. The PAB module nearer the Vortechs is a valid point for those with distance issues. But usually our sumps are just below the tank or in an adjacent room so that distance is within the Vortech operating parameters. If running the Profilux at a distance from the main display tank then you are probably already using an expansion box so the card could be used there too. I am sure there are instances that would not fall under these conditions, just my two cents!
    Maybe a PAB module capable of holding one or two cards. This way anyone with multiple tanks or wanting to have say another temp probe at the tank, and Vortech control, could do so without buying the full expansion box. And the Vortech card could still be used by PII and PIII users. I guess I am voting for one and three. LOL neil

  6. #16
    Join Date
    15.05.2010
    Location
    London
    Posts
    62

    Default

    One word, PAB.

    It's clearly the way forward in terms of expansion, no doubt the reason you guys invented it. So why not exploit it, would seem like a waste of tech not too.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    22.12.2009
    Posts
    24

    Default

    PAB sounds good to me but I really don’t care as long as get the functionality. You could send me a module and a roll of duct tape and I would be happy.
    Mark

  8. #18
    Join Date
    15.05.2010
    Location
    Waynesville, North Carolina USA
    Posts
    463

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mcrist View Post
    PAB sounds good to me but I really don’t care as long as get the functionality. You could send me a module and a roll of duct tape and I would be happy.


    LOL!


    Great attitude to have!!

  9. #19
    Join Date
    12.05.2010
    Posts
    343

    Default

    forgive me if im wrong but cant PII users upgrade to a PIII?

    In that case then PAB is the only way, you arnt stopping PII users from getting this new tech as there is already a solution to upgrade to a PIII which features PAB.

    In all cases we need to move forward, backwards compatibility is fine if the older version is unable to be upgraded, in this case you can so why continue to support old tech.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    24.02.2009
    Posts
    3

    Default

    I have a PII and don't need the expansion capabilities of PAB or the PIII. I'd like the Vortech module and there are probably others like me who may miss out if it means upgrading to a PIII just for this module. An internal card would work for everyone.

Posting Permissions

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