Device node addresses

[skiv71]

Hi,

Whilst including some devices, it doesn't seem to work right... and the device is non responsive.

On the second inclusion, it adds the same device under the next available node address.

My question, is there anyway i can reclaim the nodes that have been skipped due to error?

For example, my current node list is as follows: -

1,2,3,4,6,7,8,12.

In the list, nodes 5,9,10,11 are not used but if i add a new item, it will become 13.

Thanks

Skiv

[pz1]

From earlier reponses I understood this is inherent to Z-Wave. From an integrators perspective it would be good that a re-included device can be assigned the number it had before. That saves a lot of work on calls made to that device!

[Mike Yeager]

I'm having the same issue as I fight with a few devices that don't seem to want to include correctly. Shouldn't really matter but I would like to be able to keep the numbers contiguous....

[skiv71]

Yea same here... looks messy... and in a large network... you could lose a good percentage of available node addresses as it stands.

[pofs]

Unfortunately, numbers are automatically assigned by controller, and (I believe) it is coded somewhere deep into Sigma SDK. But I think they are starting over again after reaching maximum device id (232).

[pz1]

(I believe) it is coded somewhere deep into Sigma SDK.

Seems like a serious design flaw. Failed devices are not uncommon to Z-Wave. If I see the number of posts on this forum I find them quite alarming as a matter of fact. I had two failed devices out of 20 myself in the past 2 years.
Replacing a device is awkward, because physical device numbers have to be updated in many places. Most people here can deal with that, but for the general public it is a show stopper, unless the control software can "repair itself".

PS: I still have a few sturdy 80 year old mechanical light switches in a couple of rooms.

[Mike Yeager]

Actually, if you use good programming practices and define the device number as a variable, you only have to change it in one place. Your mechanical light switches may last another 80 years, they are not electronic. You also can't change their state without touching them...

[pz1]

Actually, if you use good programming practices and define the device number as a variable, you only have to change it in one place.

Not really, because I also do make calls to the _OpenRemoteHelper_ module from my OR controller.

If Sensys has used good practices I only had to make one edit on the controller, and there were no downstream dependencies. In principle, I only configure systems.