As far as i can read, it is nothing more but a rs485 based system! The same as knx! Moreover, it requires power separately whereas Knx is doing everything on 2 wires, meaning that it seems to be a full RS485 system probably with some custom telegrams!
I am always eager to study new systems as long as they represent a step further, but as far as I am concerned at least with this bit of information I have, it does not seem a revolution!
I could not find on velbus.eu any information with regards to the openness of the system, but I was probably not reading enough! If you have any documents that can explain the standard (if it is) or the system being open, please share those with us!
Part it is, part is pure speculation! I have seen this happening in UK and some other countries!
Gladly. 
Everything you could ever want to know about Velbus can be found here - https://www.velbus.eu/support/downloads/
For the record, Velbus is loosely based on the automotive CanBus protocol, but at a much lower speed and a higher data bus voltage.
Meaning it can be deployed over much longer distances.
Your observation that Velbus systems require a 4 core interconnection is correct, but the power pair (which supplies the logic within each module) can be zoned as many times as your design requires.
As long as 0v, Data Low & Data High are continuous throughout the network.
The best thing I can tell you is that we presented Velbus to an installation company a few years ago, including a brief demo of the configuration software, to which the very experienced KNX team said, “That’s much easier to use”.
I’m not seeking to convert you away from KNX (or other protocols) I’m merely making the case for Velbus.
It’s not a newcomer and it might not be doing anything earth shattering, but it is super reliable, easy to install and the glass panels are some of the most elegant and powerful on the market.
On the subject of reliability, out of all of the protocols on the market, Velbus was chosen for a fleet of battle field vehicles and >15 luxury cruise ships.
I’m sure there are other vessels and vehicles fitted with other protocols, I’ll just say that the Velbus ones are still working, years later.
Not so much 
I’m reliably informed that KNX compliance testing isn’t cheap.
If you’re referring to knx product certification, indeed it is not cheap, but it does offer an interoperability between producers that is still unmet on the market right now (zwave also tries this)!
Not making a point for knx, which by the way is not a vendor brand, but there are at least two knx equipment producers that have installed fully working systems on hundreds of ships with no known problems in the last 15 years!
Velbus is a company that tries to sell some products! It is undeniable that their eagerness is to offer support as free as possible, because they produce the equipment and no one can use their software without buying the equipment.
Comparing velbus to knx, or zwave does not really make a point! First of all, knx and zwave are protocols that are embraced by hundreds or even thousands of producers (some even huge corporations).
For clarity: Velbus is just a very well established producer of automation equipment that through your voice tries to seem open.
BTW: I looked at the link you sent and there is no technical information that can show me any useful information on the openness of the system!
I surrender
1 Like
I was not fighting, so nobody needs to surrender!
I am happy to find people trusting in something!
If I made something that is of worth to anyone I am really accomplished!
I think all the ‘!’ made it appear you were shouting. 
2 Likes
Indeed, looking over every single post, I was shouting.
Yes, tone needs to cool.
1 Like
@Lantash I also used the Ecobee. When we were given the choice between a free Nesh and Ecobee, I did a bunch of research and then decided on the Ecobee. That was couple months back; I can’t remember the reason why now.
For the wall switches, make sure you buy things that have electric certification (that means don’t buy cheap Chinese stuff). If your house has neutral wire, and if you are in North America, I suggest to look at the ZWave Inovelli switches. They work very well, and are slightly cheaper than the other. I got close to 10 of them in the house.
One thing with ZWave, and mesh networks in general, is that sometimes there might be a delay. For my houses, in most cases, the lights switch on instantly, but sometimes, the mesh network doesn’t route very well, and there could be a slight delay. The alternative is to use WiFi wall switches. I think their latency would be better, but I am weary of overcrowding my wifi network, as well as having Chinese gears connected to the local network.
Agree. I actually didn’t say or mean to have a single central. Yes for any reasonable sized installation, it’ll always be a zoned setup with a zone for each floor level or room. Deploying more cables is costly without adding benefit (unless you invest in copper companies shares :-))
But I disagree with @george.erhan that a bus is sufficient and will continue to be. With a bus setup, you can’t make (efficient) use of multiport actuators and you can’t even be sure your next technology will be bus based again. We need a hub and spoke architecture.
Let’s agree to disagree! First of all I will define my understanding of a bus system:
- OSI model is a must (description here) (BTW, TCP/IP is an OSI model)
- Any infrastructure chosen has to respect point 1
- The cabling is laid out in a free topology
So, in order to conclude, your statement that
is not true. In any free topology infrastructure, you can have multiport actuators in very efficient ways (zone based or not) - take a look at any multiple inputs/outputs actuators on any RS485 based system!
It seems that we do not have a common understanding on what a bus system is, so I am just trying to layout my understanding.
In terms of long term support of the concepts explained above, the entire internet is based on these, so I would not expect for this to change in a few generations coming from now on. Unless you have a better information than myself.
Come on, you’re cheating now. I was referring to a physical bus topology wiring, i.e. to deploy a line (or loop) that all devices share as a transmission medium, and I believe you know I did. Possibly multiple of those (i.e. zoned setup) although that wouldn’t be a pure physical bus any more. Wiring that is to last because to exchange it comes at high cost. I wasn’t referring to radio transmission either, that obviously always is a bus.
Internet is not bus based. OH is a bus (on OSI layer 7), but we’re talking about the transmission+routing layers. Internet is mostly hub and spoke with some redundancy rings at the physical and MAC layers (1 + 2) plus (in theory) free flexible topology on layer 3 (IP, that is). In practice, it actually isn’t as you can observe whenever any of the major transcontinental wires or exchange points goes down.
And the French / Dutch / Belgian’s…
They just put in flexible conduit and pull through whatever cables they need.
And change them at will.
Or was I missing the point 
Most home builders do, but most don’t do it consequently, and you’re lucky if you can reuse conduits after that many years (really get the cables through, have enough spare capacity etc). That also assumes no physical bus topology of the conduits but an existing star topology (multiple, eventually) from the very beginning.