Jump to content

Welcome to Smart Home Forum by FIBARO

Dear Guest,

 

as you can notice parts of Smart Home Forum by FIBARO is not available for you. You have to register in order to view all content and post in our community. Don't worry! Registration is a simple free process that requires minimal information for you to sign up. Become a part of of Smart Home Forum by FIBARO by creating an account.

 

As a member you can:

  •     Start new topics and reply to others
  •     Follow topics and users to get email updates
  •     Get your own profile page and make new friends
  •     Send personal messages
  •     ... and learn a lot about our system!

 

Regards,

Smart Home Forum by FIBARO Team


  • 0

Fibaro PLEASE PLEASE add a parameter to disable double click!


anom3
 Share

Question

I am upgrading my switches to 3.4 tomorrow, so assuming that takes care of the bug where they will ignore a physical click once in a while:

 

These would be the best switches on the market if Fibaro could add a feature to ignore double clicking all together.

 

What I mean is S1/S2 physical double click = Light ON, Light OFF

 

Although pretty obvious, we have the following happen frequently:

 

a) Guests come over, do not know which switch does what obviously.

b) Our kitchen has an attached bathroom.

c) In one spot, 4 switches, 2 for the kitchen 2 for the bathroom.

d) Guest will click a random switch, turns on kitchen light.

e) Guest will quickly click the same switch because he wants bathroom.

f) Kitchen light will NOT go off because switch detects double click.

g) Confusion!

 

...Just one example.

 

Any chance this coming with a firmware update? This could be as simple as allowing us to configure the maximum time a double click is detected, with the option to set it at zero... But if the zero is an issue, then all us to set it to 1ms :)

Edited by anom3
Typo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 1

@anom3 Like you I have a house full of these devices in combination with momentary switches.  But I don't think I have ever experienced the scenario of accidentally causing a double-click when I intended to cause two consecutive single-clicks.

 

What I do however find extremely frustrating is the inability to send "toggle" commands to associated devices.  Simple scenario: you have two FGS-223 momentary switches.  Switch A is physically connected to a light.  Switch B is not physically connected, but it's programmed with an association to control the same light.  You turn on the light by single-clicking B then off by single-clicking A.  Then you go to B and try to turn the light on, but two single-clicks are now required because B has become "out of sync" with the status of the light...

 

Is it a problem for you too?  Have you found a workaround?  I have this problem all around my house.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1

@anom3 What you wrote about the BinaryToggle command class is very interesting and it turns out you're exactly right.  On 3 July 2017 the Z-Wave spec was updated with the removal of this command class.  Source: 

Please login or register to see this link.

.  At least now I know it's not Fibaro's mistake or limitation that this command class is not supported by the FGS-223. 

 

But, like you, I really don't know why this toggle command was "obsoleted" because, as you wrote, it is super useful when you want to use multiple push buttons to change the state of the same target device.  Which I do, all over the house.  Is it really such a rare scenario?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

Would creating a scene that activates on a double click work for you?

 

The scene would check the current light status, and if on, then turn it off; else if off, turn it on.

 

You'd have to create the scene for each light, but if it's enough of a problem it can be worked around. I get your point that it would be good to have this baked in as an advanced parameter. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
  • Inquirer
  • This was the first thing I tried.

     

    The idea sounds good... Until you start to account for the fact that you are essentially doing 3 commands (FIXED IN 3.4 more if you are not using some sort of work around to bypass the FGS-2XX energy usage report set to 0, sends every second bug) to end up at the desired state.

     

    All it would take is LWR or NLWR to fail on one of the commands and you end up with XXX ms lag, if not more. That's not accounting for the time it will take the controller to actually execute the 'scene'. By then the user would have figure it out and clicked the light off, and once again, chances are high the controller will toggle to opposite state, turning the light on.

     

    Scenes are great, but not for things that need sub 500ms reaction times.

     

    This parameter should be available. I took a look at the SDK the other day, its literally like 10-20 lines of code to add it. Instead of having a hard coded 500ms (guessing that is what it is now?) just have it read a parameter with a min / max of 10-500 or somthing.

     

    I mention the 'if zero is a problem' because this would be such an easy fix, just let us set the minimum to 10ms or something and the code changes are VERY minor.

    Edited by anom3
    Typo
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    • 0

    @anom3 I'm interested in your post as I also have lots of places where there are two switches in the same place that control different rooms, so I understand the "guest' scenario you have mentioned.  And it's true that if you double-click a switch, the light only changes state once (e.g. off->on but not off->on->off).  However, I've just tested a couple of switches and found that two clicks further than 0.3 seconds apart count as two single-clicks and the light does change state twice (off->on->off) which is your desired behaviour.

     

    I don't think my guests have such quick reaction times that they can realise the wrong light is on and then attempt to turn it off with another click, in less than 0.3 seconds.

     

    Is it different for you?

     

    ps separately you can see my comments on the 3.4 update in another thread (summary: updates went fine and the switch behaviour seems slightly better).

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    • 0
  • Inquirer
  • @Greenhippo The guest was just an example I used... I feel these devices would be much closer to transparent if there was a way to disable the double click detection. I bet anyone who has a house full of these devices (as I do...) in combination with momentary switches (as I do...) has noticed the undesired behavior that the waiting for double click evokes.

     

    Yes, its rare. Yes, I have now gotten used to it so I pause slightly when I press the wrong switch sometimes... But regardless, its a bit annoying when it does pop up.

     

    I develop software all day everyday... I looked at silabs SDK... Its 10-20 lines of code to make the double click detection period user adjustable... Removing it would be a headache... But allowing us to change it via parameter to 1 to 10ms is super easy.

     

    Common Fibaro :D

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    • 0
  • Inquirer
  • 6 hours ago, Greenhippo said:

    @anom3 Like you I have a house full of these devices in combination with momentary switches.  But I don't think I have ever experienced the scenario of accidentally causing a double-click when I intended to cause two consecutive single-clicks.

     

    What I do however find extremely frustrating is the inability to send "toggle" commands to associated devices.  Simple scenario: you have two FGS-223 momentary switches.  Switch A is physically connected to a light.  Switch B is not physically connected, but it's programmed with an association to control the same light.  You turn on the light by single-clicking B then off by single-clicking A.  Then you go to B and try to turn the light on, but two single-clicks are now required because B has become "out of sync" with the status of the light...

     

    Is it a problem for you too?  Have you found a workaround?  I have this problem all around my house.

     

    Well if I am understanding correctly wouldn't it be a simple case of associating S1 (or S2) with S1 (or S2) on each of the switches together (both ways FGS-223 #1 <-> FGS-223 #2)? So they follow each other.

     

    Bare in mind, I do not use home center but it should be fairly similar... I have a wifi desk lamp that I toggle both with a button on the lamp as well as a FGS-223 (S2 in my case).

     

    S2 Click = Set the wifi lamp ON or OFF (depending on what state S2 is switched to @ FGS-223 S2)

    Button Click On Lamp = Toggle S2 @ FGS-223 to whatever state the lamp is going to

     

    Isn't it a simple case of associating each endpoint together so regardless of which one gets switch ON or OFF, the other one follows?

     

    I read a few years back, z-wave had a command called BinaryToggle... They removed it. I am not sure why, but it sounds like it would be super useful for cases where one device does not know what state the target device is in... But it got dropped for some reason.

     

    ---

     

    I just double read, the FGS-223 that is NOT connected to the lamp, does it have anything connected to it (or at least the channel)? If so, then what you want is not possible as the physical switches S1 flip the loads ON to OFF or OFF to ON and send the final state to the associated devices.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Join the conversation

    You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

    Guest
    Answer this question...

    ×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

      Only 75 emoji are allowed.

    ×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

    ×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

    ×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

     Share

    ×
    ×
    • Create New...