Looking to switch from Neptune to GHL but concerned about software

[vangvace]

How quickly do they respond to positive feedback, have any changes been made recently based on community feedback?

The GHL app/web interface changes in the past few years in particular have largely been based on community feedback. That said, there is still a large "to do" list.

 

[VegetaD]

Just an FYI. I use both a ghl profilux 4e and Doser. I also run an apex on another system.

The WAN/LAN connection issues with setup is problematic with Mesh wifi. I used a separate wireless AP connected via ethernet to my mesh satellite broadcasting a 2.4G signal. No issues connectin either ghl products. I can connect wherever I am without needing to connect to that specific AP.

Just some info as I had issues connecting when the device was looking for the mesh wifi.

 

[r21]

Just purchased the ProfiLux 4 and kh director, still have concerns about software but I think overall it’s better suited to the uk market, will fit better in cabinet and in general a better build quality than Neptune, not that I’ve had issues with my Neptune kit but the build quality is a little bit plastic fantastic

 

[Macca_75]

Absolutely agree, and that is exactly the bit I feel they need to improve.
only having two operations per gate is clunky.

For my skimmer, I have many gates:
I have a sensor in the skimmer lid to detect overflow, I don’t want it to run if the sump level is high, or the sump is low, or a leak is detected, I also want a delay after maintenance mode, so the return can catch up and not overflow the skimmer, etc.

I have all this working happily, but it needs many gates chained together, which can be painful if something fails and you need to troubleshoot.
I‘ve requested three features on this:
1) One programmable logic object to support many gates as a list (A and B, or C And D).
2) Bring back naming, which is still available in GCC, but not connect
3) introduce traffic lights against each programmable logic to indicate the state of the gate, so you don’t need to troubleshoot each component by attaching it to a switch.

I think this would make it a lot easier to work with.

This is where a small change in code would be very useful. Allow "friendly" names to be assigned to gates, then use the "friendly" name when referencing the gate (say on a switched outlet, select "Programable logic" and instead of 1-32 display (only) friendly gate names. Don't show any Programable logic that does not have logic assigned (ie. is null) and make the friendly name a mandatory input. Small UI change will make it much easier to use.

 

[r21]

This is where a small change in code would be very useful. Allow "friendly" names to be assigned to gates, then use the "friendly" name when referencing the gate (say on a switched outlet, select "Programable logic" and instead of 1-32 display (only) friendly gate names. Don't show any Programable logic that does not have logic assigned (ie. is null) and make the friendly name a mandatory input. Small UI change will make it much easier to use.

Do you think they would respond to a group message requesting these changes

 

[vangvace]

I believe that is already on their "things to do" list. I am excited to see some of the things crossed off the list... eventually.

 

[ReefPig]

Do you think they would respond to a group message requesting these changes

No need for group messages, they response well.
You post the request in the request sub forum on GHL, they response usually within a few days saying they either already have it planned or that they will consider it in the next prioritisation discussion.

To be honest, this is a nice to have feature anyway, the other things we spoke about are far more functionally important. I‘m not 90, I can remember the number of the programming gate I’ve just created.
Improving the functionality should be priority one.

But then again, I always care more about functionality than user experience.

 

[r21]

No need for group messages, they response well.
You post the request in the request sub forum on GHL, they response usually within a few days saying they either already have it planned or that they will consider it in the next prioritisation discussion.

To be honest, this is a nice to have feature anyway, the other things we spoke about are far more functionally important. I‘m not 90, I can remember the number of the programming gate I’ve just created.
Improving the functionality should be priority one.

But then again, I always care more about functionality than user experience.

I’ll have to check their forum, do they have a list of planned updates they are working on

 

[Kyl]

WAN only access is the largest issue I have with the profilux 4/4e. The wireless, for whatever reason, is a slow to load experience which creates delayed response to loading of the myghl app, the web portlett (a web facing app, it crashes just like the phone app) and even the native webserver. As well, Fusion has an upper hand here, for whatever reason GHL just has a fairly sluggish experience outside of GCC.

 

[Kyl]

In terms of the profilux ecosystem itself, I haven't had to second guess the operation of my controller since getting past the initial learning experience. That alone has made the switch worth it to me.

 

[r21]

So I had a go at setting up my new Profilux 4 yesterda, I’ll start with the good points
Build quality is impressive, seems to be very well made and things like how the probes connect are good quality connections. Unfortunately that‘s were the praise ends, as I feared the software is quite frankly terrible in my opinion.

I started with the YouTube video on setup by GHL, first point I’d make is it’s out of date compared to options I had when configuring, no big deal most of it self explanatory. So first real issue I had was setting up a myGHL account, it would not send an email verification, it was not an issue with my mailbox or spam filter it was an issue elsewhere, I tried to resend the verification three times but the email didn’t arrive. I therefore continued without linking to myGHL which led to issues later on.

So on to trying to connect to the device and setup WiFi, this was a major headache, multiple reboots, multiple errors, app crashing but eventually after about an hour I got it connected to the app over WiFi and a hotspot. Performance over the hotspot seemed ok, loading screens over WiFi was not great.

My email verification eventually turned up, meaning I could link to myGHL, this caused mayhem in the app and I had to delete the app as it got stuck on entering my myGHL credentials. So now I’m back to reconfiguring WiFi and the same set of issues I’d had at the start.

I’m now a few hours in and I’ve got WiFi setup and linked to myGHL and I can start to have a look around the app, well disappointing is the word I’d use in general to describe the experience. It’s slow, it’s unintuitive, it crashes randomly, I did like some of things you configure such as renaming feed and maintenance modes, and rearrange, resizing of tile.

Im now seriously considering returning the product, I really want to like the quality is great in terms of physical hardware it’s just such poor software

 

[Tristren]

So I had a go at setting up my new Profilux 4 yesterda, I’ll start with the good points
Build quality is impressive, seems to be very well made and things like how the probes connect are good quality connections. Unfortunately that‘s were the praise ends, as I feared the software is quite frankly terrible in my opinion.

I started with the YouTube video on setup by GHL, first point I’d make is it’s out of date compared to options I had when configuring, no big deal most of it self explanatory. So first real issue I had was setting up a myGHL account, it would not send an email verification, it was not an issue with my mailbox or spam filter it was an issue elsewhere, I tried to resend the verification three times but the email didn’t arrive. I therefore continued without linking to myGHL which led to issues later on.

So on to trying to connect to the device and setup WiFi, this was a major headache, multiple reboots, multiple errors, app crashing but eventually after about an hour I got it connected to the app over WiFi and a hotspot. Performance over the hotspot seemed ok, loading screens over WiFi was not great.

My email verification eventually turned up, meaning I could link to myGHL, this caused mayhem in the app and I had to delete the app as it got stuck on entering my myGHL credentials. So now I’m back to reconfiguring WiFi and the same set of issues I’d had at the start.

I’m now a few hours in and I’ve got WiFi setup and linked to myGHL and I can start to have a look around the app, well disappointing is the word I’d use in general to describe the experience. It’s slow, it’s unintuitive, it crashes randomly, I did like some of things you configure such as renaming feed and maintenance modes, and rearrange, resizing of tile.

Im now seriously considering returning the product, I really want to like the quality is great in terms of physical hardware it’s just such poor software

Yes, there are definitely aspects of the software side, in terms of UX and connectivity / responsiveness that fall short. I suppose all I can say is it is much less of an issue once you are set up and running (though not the load speed). And also that that is because the system is so reliable that you don't have to fiddle with the settings often and it has advanced to the point where going in through the up to see the status and make adjustments really works quite well.

I do think that there must be some architecture/infrastructure issues that I wouldn't be able to speak to at all that need to be addressed to improve the speed though.

So, while I had the same reaction as you, I am definitely pleased I went with GHL and don't regret it at all.

Cheers, Tony

 

[arking_mark]

I am a big fan of GHL due to the quality of their components. That being said, their software is not as user friendly as Neptune. I knew that going in. However, for the custom automation I am doing, I have gotten used to and like how GHL handles it. There are definitely some benefits to their approach. If you are just doing more straightforward integrations, you are probably better served by Neptune which has more built-in stuff for 3rd party components.