Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

IFTTT or google Link to homeseer

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • ksum
    replied
    You do realize you can create shortcuts, basically custom commands, in GH which makes your request more natural for items, right? For instance, I have (and had prior to using a GH device) a virtual device which, when set to on, runs an event to turn a contact module On then Off, and then change the virtual device to Off as well. This is used to open my garage door (yes, there are garage door units now) and was initially set up for HStouch. Instead of telling GH to turn on the garage door virtual device, I say "Open the garage door" and the shortcut converts it to "Turn on the garage door." I also set one up for Closing the door, which is running the same command so I get the same response. Sure the response back is "Turning on the garage door." but my command is natural and the result is what I need. This is the same event I use with an HStouch screen button "Garage Door" which is used to Open and Close the door.

    I also thought that the MyHS connection was only for syncing the devices and that the commands stayed local. Perhaps I was just assuming that, though.

    As for why is HS "so bad" when IFTTT shows it could be better, aren't you basically just using IFTTT the run shortcuts similar to my scenario above? So instead of adding a third item, use shortcuts in GH to run the event.

    Yes, I tried IFTTT a while ago and quickly abandoned it when it took a while for certain events to run.

    Karl

    Leave a comment:


  • Pierre
    replied
    Your youngsters still need to talk to the Mini even using IFTTT, don't they?
    In my place:
    With HS : "Turn on the kitchen light" or "dim the kitchen light to 30", answer is "OK I turn the kitchen light on"

    With IFTT: "Kitchen light" (will toggle on/off) answer is "OK".

    I guess the problem is not using IFTT ot not, but "why is HS so bad using Google Home when IFFT shows it could be better".

    Leave a comment:


  • claude
    replied
    Originally posted by TheMuscat View Post
    There has been mention of the delay using IFTTT and GH to HS. I don't really notice it. i find the response time is not much different then Zwave switches I have on my system. Or if there is a delay it isn't anything that bothers me. i do have a very fast fibre connection so that maybe the differences.
    Things may have improved with IFTTT over time. I think delays in general are more because of server delays than network delays. With GH, requests travel to Google.com to IFTTT to MyHs and finally back to your HS installation: each of the intermediary points can induce some processing delay. Plus, we may have fiber connections to our homes but some backbones can nonetheless get saturated.

    Originally posted by TheMuscat View Post
    ... i have a 7 and 5 year old and they can't remember the phases that need to be said to have the HS and GS link work.

    Personally, I like IFTTT and think it is a good way to have devices from different manufacturers work together without having to buy a 30 to 40 dollar (American dollars) plugin. If there is a plugin.
    Your youngsters still need to talk to the Mini even using IFTTT, don't they?

    Leave a comment:


  • claude
    replied
    Originally posted by TheMuscat View Post
    Hi Claude.
    You asked why go to the internet to turn some light on if it can all be done on your local network?
    If I want to use Google Mini I don't have a choice. The HS and to GH link is done through the cloud. I agree I would prefer to keep it local but I don't have that option.

    Unless I am missing something.
    Sorry, you're right, MyHS is required for GH (unfortunately). I was thinking of my past usage of IFTTT where I had it trigger things on HS. My point really was that I prefer to minimize the number of external interfaces to get something done.

    Leave a comment:


  • TheMuscat
    replied
    There has been mention of the delay using IFTTT and GH to HS. I don't really notice it. i find the response time is not much different then Zwave switches I have on my system. Or if there is a delay it isn't anything that bothers me. i do have a very fast fibre connection so that maybe the differences.

    For me I would rather have a bit of a delay but have the ability to use voice command to control my lights and the functionality of HS to GS link really does suck. i have a 7 and 5 year old and they can't remember the phases that need to be said to have the HS and GS link work.

    Personally, I like IFTTT and think it is a good way to have devices from different manufacturers work together without having to buy a 30 to 40 dollar (American dollars) plugin. If there is a plugin.

    Leave a comment:


  • TheMuscat
    replied
    Hi Claude.
    You asked why go to the internet to turn some light on if it can all be done on your local network?
    If I want to use Google Mini I don't have a choice. The HS and to GH link is done through the cloud. I agree I would prefer to keep it local but I don't have that option.

    Unless I am missing something.

    Leave a comment:


  • Pierre
    replied
    I never wanted my HA to be dependent of outside or cloud-based services.
    I also hate that IFTT is free, which means they sell _me_ somehow.

    But I had to change my mind for using Google Home with HS, and feel sad about it.

    - Using IFTT as TheMuscat lets you trigger events or update devices, but using the exact phrase you choose as trigger, and not "Turn on the room virtual device" or such formated complex chain.
    I have only tried the "Say a simple phrase" trigger option, but other options are present in IFTT to include numbers that could also be usefull for HS, if HS took care...

    -Using IFTT, you can also have the choice of what the GH will tell you when executing.
    I felt ridiculous when GH was saying "OK, I turn the virtual1 on" when I just wanted to update a virtual device in order to trigger a complicated event. This is also monotonous and absolutely not user-friendly. I guess that most users want their HA to be original or humorous when talking, or be discete, and only IFTT offers that.
    Also the IFTT interface reveals how poor the HS GUI is now comparing with this one, where you can interact with thousands of different device in a very easy way.


    I could live having to use regular appliance buttons to turn on the lights when Internet connection is down, and my new fiber connection has turned down IFTT delay to execute to less than a second.

    Leave a comment:


  • claude
    replied
    I used IFTTT for a while. In my situation, IFTTT was not responsive enough.

    As for IFTTT or the GH-to-HS link, for me, same problem: inserting another third party in the mix with the increased risk of failure of one of the components and an added delay.

    Why go out to the Internet to turn some light On if it can all be done on your local network?

    The HS link currently provides for device control (switches and thermostats). Event support is in the works, although using a HS variable is a decent workaround for now.

    Leave a comment:


  • TheMuscat
    started a topic IFTTT or google Link to homeseer

    IFTTT or google Link to homeseer

    Hello everyone,

    I am very new to Homeseer and home automation. I have google mini and homeseer and have started playing with options. My question is with the limited control options between homeseer and googles home is it better to use IFTTT.
    you can activate events and do many more commands with IFTTT then the link.

    Look forward to hearing peoples opinions.
Working...
X