Until the Z-Wave firmware bug is resolved on the Vera1, would MCV please re-open the Vera1 to Vera2 upgrade offer? For loyal Vera1 customers we still have a solution that has a fundamental flaw (the Z-Wave firmware issue) and no way to currently resolve it without paying full price for a Vera2.
honestly, im surprised you want another vera at this point 
As a personal opinion (read not MCV official), honestly, how long do you think it will take until your comments will transcend from the ‘not a satisfied customer’ state to ‘hating stuff’ which I could just assume will not be tolerated here? While nobody at MCV will do things such censoring posts or taking harsh measures because someone is not satisfied with the product or gets poor support or whatever, I think that people that go around yelling ‘don’t buy it, give up on this stuff’ will have a short life on this forum. You could go anywhere else to say how bad our services are but you choose to do it here, may I ask why?
Can I please get a response on my question? I’m glad someone from MCV posted to this thread, but I’m a little surprised it was only in response to the other user’s criticism and no mentionn was made of my original request.
I’m happy sticking with Vera, but I’d like a solution to the z-wave firmware issue either through Vera1 or through offering the upgrade path to Vera2, and I really, really don’t want to go through rebuilding my network again knowing that the z-wave bug is still on my vera1.
The reason I haven’t answered your question is that I don’t work in sales. I did forward this topic to sales department but I think that those are the kind of questions that should go directly to sales at micasaverde dot com or support at micasaverde dot com. If I’ll get an answer I’ll forward it to you.
Thanks. I sent a message to support but never received a reply back. Should I email sales as well?
Are you currently running .1245, which has a workaround for the Z-Wave bug?
[quote=“oTi@, post:7, topic:168857”]@nathanhall,
Are you currently running .1245, which has a workaround for the Z-Wave bug?[/quote]
So with a V1, running .1245, what settings do you need to set to get this workaround? I have a V1 running .1245, and am still seeing the same (and in some cases, worse) Zwave network lockups I was seeing with UI2. MCV has tried accessing my system through enabling support, but I finally had to make one of them an admin on the system so they could experiment. I have seen evidence of experimentation (mostly that our garden shed Schlage lever lock has fallen off the network), but haven’t gotten any feedback from them saying what was/is wrong, or how I should change things to stabilize my system.
–Richard
Haters gonna hate. Deal with it. I paid for the product, i feel i can say whatever i want on the forums, especially when others are having similar problems and gripes/hang ups. New users need to know what they are in for (if they couldnt tell already, that official announcements forum is a ghost town). If the product was great and met my needs and basic expectations, maybe my posts would lean a different way.
Glad you got around to actually addressing the question, if you want to call it that. Modus Operandi around here.
[quote=“oTi@, post:7, topic:168857”]@nathanhall,
Are you currently running .1245, which has a workaround for the Z-Wave bug?[/quote]
I am - my understanding is that this doesn’t fix the Z-Wave bug for Vera1 hardware. The bug I am referring to was referenced in the MCV post http://forum.micasaverde.com/index.php?topic=5756.0 (breakthrough made in improving Z-Wave reliability) where MCV states that the Vera 2 will receive the upgrade automatically, but it will take a while for MCV to do a Windows utility to upgrade Vera 1’s dongle. That was posted 6 months ago.
The release notes for .1245 mention the Z-Wave chip upgrade, but the procedure (http://wiki.micasaverde.com/index.php/MigrateTo452) specifically states “This migration only works with a Vera2”
Mostly I’m looking for MCV to provide a committed date as to when the fix will be available for Vera1 users, and the continued option of the discounted Vera1 to Vera2 upgrade until the fix is available. My understanding is that without this fix my Z-Wave network is not reliable under Vera1 (and this has certainly been my experience on a ~70 node network)
Good. And correct, there is no new Z-Wave firmware for the dongle.
The bug I am referring to was referenced in the MCV post http://forum.micasaverde.com/index.php?topic=5756.0 (breakthrough made in improving Z-Wave reliability) [...]Right. But from that statement ... [quote="micasaverde, post:1, topic:167702"]Sigma will be releasing a new Z-Wave firmware that fixes this. [...] To get around this until that occurs, Sigma revealed to us some undocumented "secrets" about how to directly manipulate the memory in the Z-Wave chip to manually clear out the routing table.
We finished implementing this, and will be pushing out a new firmware to the beta testers within a couple days, and to the public shortly thereafter.[…][/quote]
… I got the impression that .1245 is the firmware with the workaround; regardless of any Z-Wave firmware fixes.
Did you not see any improvement with .1245 on your Vera1?
It’s hard to say - I’ve still had to rebuild my network since the firmware came out. I can’t quantify how much more reliable .1245 is, but I do know that it is not yet what I would call reliable.
My impression from the fact that they issued the z-wave firmware upgrade to Vera2 owners and promised a future Windows utility for Vera1 owners to do the same is that there is some value to this upgrade beyond that provided by the routing table workaround in .1245. In the Z-Wave Vera2 wiki upgrade procedure, MCV states that :
“This gives Vera the ability to optimize the Z-Wave network, This is particularly useful in a large and complex network with lots of Z-Wave devices.”
and
"We recommend new customers to always use the newer version of Z-Wave. "
My interpretation of that is that there is a known bug in the 2.78 Z-Wave implementation which impacts large Z-Wave networks. As an owner of a Vera1 with a large network and the buggy firmware, I want either the new firmware as promised or a lower-cost upgrade path that can get me to the new firmware.
No disrespect, but Vera is as close to a community project as you would get IMHO. Its certainly not open source, but i have yet to find a closed source project with such an active community working on code, plugins, (beta) testing, wiki and forum.
Also there are not many companies accepting all these contributions and even opening up their bugtracking system to the public.
Having said all that, we all have issues using Vera and we all learn and try to help fellow users and MCV on improving the product.
You have a choice. You can always send the product back, ask for a refund and switch to something you deem more mature or stable, suiting your needs.
Of course your voice echoes issues many users experience. Alas it does nothing to help solve them.
For that respectfull dialogue, knowhow and persistance are needed. I can only find one of those virtues in your comments… Persistance…
I challenge you to show at least one of the other two to try and contribute to the user experience in a positive way.
Regards,
Henk
Haters gonna hate. Deal with it. I paid for the product, i feel i can say whatever i want on the forums, especially when others are having similar problems and gripes/hang ups. New users need to know what they are in for (if they couldnt tell already, that official announcements forum is a ghost town). If the product was great and met my needs and basic expectations, maybe my posts would lean a different way.
Glad you got around to actually addressing the question, if you want to call it that. Modus Operandi around here.[/quote]
It’s hard to say - I’ve still had to rebuild my network since the firmware came out. I can’t quantify how much more reliable .1245 is, but I do know that it is not yet what I would call reliable.
My impression from the fact that they issued the z-wave firmware upgrade to Vera2 owners and promised a future Windows utility for Vera1 owners to do the same is that there is some value to this upgrade beyond that provided by the routing table workaround in .1245. In the Z-Wave Vera2 wiki upgrade procedure, MCV states that :
“This gives Vera the ability to optimize the Z-Wave network, This is particularly useful in a large and complex network with lots of Z-Wave devices.”
and
"We recommend new customers to always use the newer version of Z-Wave. "
My interpretation of that is that there is a known bug in the 2.78 Z-Wave implementation which impacts large Z-Wave networks. As an owner of a Vera1 with a large network and the buggy firmware, I want either the new firmware as promised or a lower-cost upgrade path that can get me to the new firmware.[/quote]
Understand that the z-wave stick for the vera1 to be upgraded to 3.20 release would need to be provided by aeon labs.
- Garrett
In the MCV posting “breakthrough in Z-wave reliability” I was under the impression that MCV committed to providing this firmware upgrade via a Windows utility for the Vera1. Whether they ultimately source this from Aeon Labs shouldn’t matter to the end user (me).
I didn’t purchase the Vera1 from Aeon Labs - I purchased it from MCV, so I would expect MCV to work with the component vendor to provide me with the upgrade, just as they should for any other component of the Vera product no matter who the ultimate source is. That is the expectation when purchasing a complete product assembled and sold by a vendor (MCV) as opposed to purchasing the individual components (Asus, Aeon Labs, etc.) and doing your own assembly.
When I buy a Dell, if the NIC card has a firmware bug that needs to be fixed, I expect Dell to source that fix from the vendor and provide it to me through Dell support channels as opposed to telling me - “Hey - I know you bought the computer from us, but the NIC we used is a 3com, so go bother 3com.”
Sorry for any typos i am posting from my phone.
I realize people get frustrated at negative posters to the forum but give Nathan a break.
Nowhere on the MCV marketing pages for Vera 1 or 2 does it mention that the product is a “work in progress”, community developed device, or controller for enthusiasts with luup and linux experience.
Is it unreasonable to expect that a zwave controller would actually control zwave devices correctly and in a stable manner after being on sale for years?
I have Vera1, and roughly every five to six months my zwave network of 6 devices self destructs completely. It has been that way since the beginning. I understand the zwave issue was not mcv s doing, but i dont think nathan’s request is unreasonable given the fact pattern, no matter what he may have posted.
Another poster mentioned that nathan had only shown one valuable trait, persistence. I would add that after waiting years for zwave to be dependable on a zwave controller, he has also shown remarkable patience.
actually i was that poster. My post was directed especially towards @hightop32 if you had read it correctly.
As for Nathan, i can relate to how he feels and i can totally understand Nathans request to MCV.
In fact, i support you point of view.
I hope Nathan got a reply from the salesdepartment of MCV.
As for your zwave network breaking down every 6 weeks, thats not good!
What firmware are you running in your Vera 1?
Maybe we can help and identify the issue or create a workaround?
Best, Henk
As[quote=“not12bhere, post:16, topic:168857”]Sorry for any typos i am posting from my phone.
I realize people get frustrated at negative posters to the forum but give Nathan a break.
Nowhere on the MCV marketing pages for Vera 1 or 2 does it mention that the product is a “work in progress”, community developed device, or controller for enthusiasts with luup and linux experience.
Is it unreasonable to expect that a zwave controller would actually control zwave devices correctly and in a stable manner after being on sale for years?
I have Vera1, and roughly every five to six months my zwave network of 6 devices self destructs completely. It has been that way since the beginning. I understand the zwave issue was not mcv s doing, but i dont think nathan’s request is unreasonable given the fact pattern, no matter what he may have posted.
Another poster mentioned that nathan had only shown one valuable trait, persistence. I would add that after waiting years for zwave to be dependable on a zwave controller, he has also shown remarkable patience.[/quote]