This is a new vesion of the document that was posted 2/25/2026

Wednesday, March 4, 2026 | 15:44pm
Attachment Size
6.16.2 Thermostat Status 1 v3 - Recommended Changes 12Mar2026.docx 26.69 KB
You must be logged in to comment. Log in
7 comments

Steve Duncan Member for 4 years 2 months

Updated new version posted 

Jennifer Tyler Member for 4 months 2 weeks

Yes, I think this is definitely more clear.  The only one I would change is Op Mode 1-6, Fan Mode = On, Fan Speed = 0, Heat/Cool demand = Met.  I would change the Fan behavior to vendor-defined.   Then for Fan Only mode, I could give Firefly the Off mode they want, but for the other modes, it could stay on at Low, which is what I believe legacy is doing today.

Martin Perlot Member for 6 months 3 weeks

That would be a change in the intent of the DGN.  I'm content to see the new Aux/No Fan mode, as it simply expands the DGN in a way that doesn't affect existing devices.  And everyone should be happy to see any new text that clarifies the existing intent.  But changing the intent of an existing DGN is serious business.  If Firefly wants to change the intent of the existing DGN, then it's on them to make an explicit submission and make their case for the change.

Jennifer Tyler Member for 4 months 2 weeks

The issue is that the fan text under table 5.3 is in direct contradiction with this.    "First, note that 0 always means Off (or the equivalent). Other values are divided as equally as possible among the possible states. Thus a two-stage fan would consider values from 1-100 (50%) as "Low" and 101-200 (100%) as "High". A three-stage fan would use 1-66 (33%) as "Low", 67-133 (66.5%) as "Medium", and 134-200 (100%) as "High". A five-stage fan would use intervals of 1-40, 41-80, 81-120, 121-160, and 161-200."

So if we are going to now make a 0 be "Low", we need to also update the text in that section.  We should update it anyway, because 0 is not always Off.  Reading this, I can see why some of the multiplex suppliers expected a 0 to be OFF.  I'm frustrated that none of them ever escalated this before now.

Martin Perlot Member for 6 months 3 weeks

Agreed.  We should add to section 5.3, "Unless specifically indicated in the DGN description . . . "  That particular text was written much later than the Thermostat DGNs.  Perhaps that's why this seems to be a relatively new problem.  

I'll write that up as a separate submission.

 

Jennifer Tyler Member for 4 months 2 weeks

Sounds good.  I'll send a rev 3 of the above to the admin updating the word doc to pull in your table and text.