AnonymousNovember 28, 2010 at 4:53 amPost count: 6
I updated my EZBridge to the 2.06 firmware. Afterwards, I had one successful Insteon exchange with the PLM (queried a SwitchLinc device’s status, if that matters). Since that exchange, I get “Failure: Device did not respond!” to every Insteon command. I’ve tried power cycling, and I’ve tried a full reset of the PLM; neither had any effect. Help!AnonymousNovember 28, 2010 at 5:02 amPost count: 6
UPDATE: Instead of controlling directly via a socket, I set up a device in the HTML interface. Most of the time, I get “PLM Timeout error!”, but occasionally (perhaps one in ten attempts), the device will respond.
The interface indicates “PLM Ver 24”. Is there an issue between 2.06 and older PLM’s? The previous firmware was working happily with this PLM for years…
Thanks in advance for any assistance…
– TimAnonymousNovember 28, 2010 at 5:43 amPost count: 1001
The PLM on my EZBridge is v76. I’m running 02.06.16. A v24 is so old I’m not sure if there are any issues with the PLM firmware that far back. I think you will have to wait until Monday to get a response from SHN directly. What image were you running before upgrading to 02.06 and did you upgrade to 02.06.16 using the Java Discovery Tool?AnonymousNovember 28, 2010 at 6:12 amPost count: 6
Thanks for the response. I believe I was on 1.16 before upgrading. I used the Utility Suite to do the upgrade… all commands that don’t involve the PLM seem to function without issue since the upgrade, so it seems like there is some communication issue with the PLM.AnonymousNovember 28, 2010 at 6:48 pmPost count: 6
UPDATE: I had a newer PLM available (firmware 52), and substiting this for my older PLM solved the issue.
I strongly suggest adding a note to the readme for the 2.x firmware which indicates that it may be necessary to replace your PLM if it is an older model. Had I not had a newer PLM on hand, I would have been SOL.
TimAnonymousNovember 28, 2010 at 7:02 pmPost count: 1001
Thanks for the update and good to hear you are working now. Note that even the v52 is a very old PLM. I think the latest PLM firmware in the 2412 is v84 or v85. The Dual Band PLMs are up to v92.
LeeAnonymousNovember 28, 2010 at 10:40 pmPost count: 6
FWIW, the v24 PLM was the one that shipped with my EZBridge, so they’re definitely out there. 🙂
TimAnonymousNovember 28, 2010 at 11:17 pmPost count: 1001
I would not be surprised although the EZBridge is no longer being marketed. I was noting the age of the PLM in case you run into other issues that could be related to running the latest V2 image with old PLM firmware. Just as many things were resolved between 1.16 and the last V1 image 1.60, Smartlabs has been fixing bugs and improving function in their PLM. Only a guess but it would not be a surprise to me if something else surfaces with a V52 PLM as you explore the new EZSrve V2 capability. Even the 2412 PLM has been discontinued from Smarthome sales pages. Last time I looked only refurbished 2412s were being sold. Simplehomenet is marketing the EZICOMM which is the functional equivalent to the discontinued Smartlabs 2412 Serial PLM.AnonymousNovember 29, 2010 at 8:30 pmPost count: 6
Thanks for the response; from a development perspective, I totally understand where you’re coming from.
From a consumer perspective, while I hugely appreciate free firmware upgrades, I do feel there’s a responsibility to issue some advance warning when the update might necessitate a new purchase – otherwise, my default assumption is that you’ve tested with the range of hardware that’s out there, and not found any issues.
It makes sense that there would be a cut-off on how far back you want to support legacy hardware (and in fact, I checked the readme ahead of installing to make sure there were no disclaimers of that nature), so I wouldn’t begrudge a message that says those of us with older hardware are excluded from a particular upgrade – I would just want to know ahead of time so that I don’t waste time debugging / don’t unwittingly install an upgrade that could necessitate a new purchase.
Anyhow, my particular situation worked out (and v52 seems to have no issues with 2.06 for what it’s worth). I still strongly recommend that you add a warning to your readme.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.