Apex vs. RKE

[Constantin]

while Apex is vastly superior simply because its programmable online from the start, I must say that alot of things on Curts lists arent really true *yet* as right now you cannot have anything other than the base module with 1 bar . Also DA were the ones that had the modular design first, but i am very happy Neptune adopted that design, as it seems to be very easy to set up and very easy to work with, not to mention the cool head unit!
i am sure things will become avaliable for Apex but its been a long time since the scheduled launch for apex and i am still stuck with only one outlet, just because you cannot chain link dc8 and powerbars - it makes sense to buy more powerbars, also no additional modules for more ph probes not to mention salinity.
But right now, all I need is more power bars, gogogo Curt!

-Just my 2 cent.

 

[NeveSSL]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15505617#post15505617 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by clp
There is really no comparison between the two controllers. The RKE is inferior in just about every aspect. Here are some features in which the Apex system is better:

Looks better
Very attractive mechanical design
High Quality Display with excellent clarity/contrast.
- Costs less.
- Easy to use configuration wizards.
- Most expandable controller - up to 240 modules, thousands of outlets, hundreds of probes.
- backwards compatible with older AquaController accessories.
- More features - Some include:
more flexible/sophisticate configuration
season lighting control
season temperature control
- Integrated Ethernet (Optional $$$ on RKE)
- Monitoring & Control & configuration on the webserver.
- Only controller with web browser based configuration.
- XML support
- multiple head unit displays - not possible on RKE
- multiple sound alarms.
- Includes 6 digital inputs vs 2 on RKE.
- Galvanic Isolation on probes result in accurate readings. RKE has no isolation and has major interference issues.
- Includes built-in variable speed pump control. Not possible on RKE
- Includes built-in 0-10V light dimming. Extra on RKE
- Can name outlets, and modules - not possible on RKE
- ORP input is modal - can be ORP or pH input on Apex - not possible on RKE
- Default outlet state on Apex. On competition of a communication error occurs all outlets
just shut off - RKE just shuts everything off
- State of the Art 32 bit processor - not an 8 bit slow processor like RKE.
- 5 times faster than competitor's controllers
- 16 times more code space - much more expandable for future enhancements.
Not code space limited like the RKE
- 16 times more storage space for datalogs than the RKE.
- Bus interconnect can be starred or daisy chain configuration.
- Has Power failure detection/alarms/control - not possible on RKE.
- EB8 has power failure detection/alarms/control - not possible on RKE
- Don't have to disassemble controller to perform firmware upgrades
- Reliable/High Quality buttons (No unreliable capsense)
- Lowest cost per outlet control options
- Robust communications protocol Bus Interface with error correcting.
- EnergyBars have built-in AquaBus hubs - On RKE must purchase add-on.
- Built in virtual outlets. On RKE must purchase announced but not shipping PC1.
- Cable lengths can be much longer than RKE.

Curt

Wow... do you think you could possibly post an objective comparison? This seems to me to be riddled with opinion.

Am I the only that thinks so?

For example, the speed of a processor is based on the clock of the processor, not how many bits it can process.

Or did I miss something?

Not to mention the Apex looks a lot LIKE the RKE, not necessarily better.

Not trying to start any flaming by any means, but I find that response to be unbelievably subjective. Not a whole lot of facts in there and very misleading. In fact, some statements are flat out incorrect (such as star topology vs. daisy chaining... the RKE can do that).

Brandon

 

[Deleted member 143833]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15514024#post15514024 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by NeveSSL
Wow... do you think you could possibly post an objective comparison? This seems to me to be riddled with opinion.

Am I the only that thinks so?

For example, the speed of a processor is based on the clock of the processor, not how many bits it can process.

Or did I miss something?

Not to mention the Apex looks a lot LIKE the RKE, not necessarily better.

Not trying to start any flaming by any means, but I find that response to be unbelievably subjective. Not a whole lot of facts in there and very misleading. In fact, some statements are flat out incorrect (such as star topology vs. daisy chaining... the RKE can do that).

Brandon

I would have prefered to see a response on the major components listed rather than picking out some of the lesser items. Tell me about the differences in functionality!

For example:

Can the RKE be programmed and controlled over the Net? Can I turn off/on an outlet from my office if I notice something looks bad?

Does the RKE support fallback in and power fail scenarios that the Apex can?

I don't have a particular interest in CPU nor the color of the plastic (not over functionality).

 

[clp]

Sure, I'll agree with you that a couple of the items are subjective:

Looks better
Very attractive mechanical design
Easy to use configuration wizards

But I'd say the rest are fact.

Yes clock speed is important in processor but also very important is the natural word size of the processor. Most of the data that the Apex controller process is not 8 bit. It is mostly 16 bit on controller functionality and for web stuff 32 bit. On an 8 bit processor it takes 4 times as many operations to process 32 bit data types. 2 times as many for 16 bit data types.
The Apex processor runs at 70 Mhz. The RKE processor runs at most 24 Mhz. So the speed advantage of the Apex processor (assuming average data size is 16 bits) is 70/24 * 2 = 5.8 times

Curt

 

[HeneryH]

Curt, our (those who brought up the speed/word size issue) point is that speed and word size advantage does not necessarily translate into user noticeable performance increases.

Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't.

10ms response vs 58ms response would never be noticed.

Engineers love it but users maybe couldn't care less.

 

[clp]

Your point is valid if the 8 bit processor has enough horse-power to handle worst case processing requirements. There are many times when many simultatenous events occur, and an 8-bit is just too slow and the user experience/control suffers.

Curt

 

[alex93se]

I love how everyone that owns a RKE is complaining about the comparison that Curt posted. Sounds like alot of people out there have buyer's remorse.

As far a specs go, I would rather have a controller with better specs period. 32 bit is better than 8 bit, regardless if the speed is used. Tunze controller is a huge selling point as well as NET access built in, regardless if you use the net access.

Also, this is Neptune's forum, so Curt has every right to post his opinion on which controller he thinks looks better!

 

[cbrguy]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15515473#post15515473 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by alex93se
I love how everyone that owns a RKE is complaining about the comparison that Curt posted. Sounds like alot of people out there have buyer's remorse.

I don't see one person complaining. I see people correcting Curt's misleading comparison. I have zero buyers' remorse and if I though APEX was better I would simply go out and buy one.

If next year APEX is better than the RKE and all of the bugs are worked out I will go out and buy one. It's not like we bought cars here... It's a controller.

 

[andywe]

I really think the tenor of the response set off more than anything else. This question was asked on the other side and the responses were far more cordial and factual. It says alot about a company by how they handle themselves. The difference between a good company and a great company is how they respond to the consumers. Integrity, honesty, and respect goes farther than anything. All I can say is WOW!

I think the Apex is a fine controller too, and after my comparrison I have zero buyers remorse in making the choice I made (RKE). Opinions vary...and that is good for us as was stated earlier because ultimately we all benefit from the advances made in the spirit of competition.

 

[wwanthony]

I don't think there was anything wrong with the response from Neptune. They believe they have the best offering.

Its funny how the Neptune guys are OK with the response, but the RKE guys are not. Good company, great company, integrity, honesty, respect? This is very subjective stuff. Neptune is a fantastic company for those who have used their products for years and years. Curt has treated us very, very well.

I think we all get too sensitive at times. I drive BMWs. I have yet to walk into an MB dealer that has not told me that their cars were better looking and faster (let along all the other technical benefits). And you know.......there is nothing wrong with that.

 

[cbrguy]

Again I don't see where RKE users are sensitive? I think that every RKE owner has said that the APEX controller is a good controller and really even as far as usable features go they are about equal. Sure the APEX is better on paper but does that matter? I think not...

To use your auto analogy
When I raced my bike people would alway tell me how fast their Gixxer was faster than my CBR. And I'd agree, the only problem is if we used even half the power our bikes we would be getting paid to race instead of paying to race.

I do think they designed their system after the RKE, but imitation is the greatest form of flattery. If RKE doesn't come out with a configurable net module and APEX comes out with a salinity probe I will look at the APEX system.

 

[wwanthony]

Agreed. And I did not mean just RKE users are sensitive. We ALL get a little sensitive.

Time will tell. Neptune has a lot of components in their feature set to get out to us (We can't even buy an additional Display or Energy Bar yet!) And DA has some stuff to implement also.

About a year from now we will all have a better picture of what each platform does best.

 

[NeveSSL]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15517138#post15517138 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by wwanthony
Agreed. And I did not mean just RKE users are sensitive. We ALL get a little sensitive.

Time will tell. Neptune has a lot of components in their feature set to get out to us (We can't even buy an additional Display or Energy Bar yet!) And DA has some stuff to implement also.

About a year from now we will all have a better picture of what each platform does best.

Couldn't have said it better!

Both companies are developing their units and time will tell. My only issue was with inaccurate and misleading information. If both companies have things in development, for someone buying a controller at the moment, that is very important to know.

Ultimately, for some people the Apex will be better, others the RKE IMO. It depends a lot on what you need or just flat-out what you want.

Brandon

 

[Deleted member 143833]

Andywe (on the DA forum) was kind enough to answer a few of my questions and I thought readers here would like to read it when comparing the 2 units now or in the future...

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I found that the RKE does not appear to have an equivalent to Max Change (to control the amount of time a device remains in a set state after power fail or being turned on/off). In a recent thread the reply suggests that there is a fixed time of 15 minutes (using a light programming mode).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



You can program a delay for any item to power up from a standby. ALthough it does not allow a static setting for power loss, there is this feature to partly help as well as the light stting for the 15 min delay.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I was also unable to locate indications that the RKE supports power loss scenarios as the Apex can. The Apex can be programmed to detect power out for an individual EB8 or a general power fail (if the base unit is powered by a battery or UPS).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



The RKM hub, which can be hooked up to a 9v battery and keep the headunit powered so that when power returns, the system continues on as programmed. I will preface certain types of timers may not fire until their next cycle. No need of bulky or improper battery backup units unless you choose to do that.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Web access to the RKE doesn't appear to be as rich as for the Apex. You need the optional module #RKM-NET# which appears to give you some net facilities #email, status, log and graph# but I was unable to locate information that indicated support for control or programming of the connected devices as the Apex has.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



This is a preference, not a necessity. It's not that the RKM-Net isn't capable, it just is not implemented yet and my guess is will be in the not to distant future. To myself and many others, controlling the sockets remotely is not that big of a deal, but more of a coolness factor. The fact is I program the RKE to watch out for scenarios where I may need lights to be shut off, or an ATO pump to be turned off. I want that action immediate and to be notified of the event.

One last thing not on your list I feel is very important is the fact that the RKE is modular, where the Apex is not comparitavely. WIth the RKE< you can palce modules where you want, and not be constrained by the controller as to where things are placed. Further, as features are added and new technologies come about in the future, your existing setup isn't antiquated. If your module with PH, or net goes out..then you do not have to take down your whole system for repair/replacement. Pricing is also more flexable..you pay for the features you want.

 

[HeneryH]

DA keeps talking about the benefit of having the NET module and pH module separate in case of failure. I just don't get it. These things don't fail very often at all. Why don't computers have separate network connectors rather than built-in in case they fail. You wouldn't want to replace your whole computer if the net fails?

Also what do they mean by Apex not being modular? Is it the pH/ORP/Net being on the main controller?

 

[phuzzykins]

I think this discussion is a great example of why there's space in the market for competitive products.

Neither product is clearly superior to the other on paper in every situation; which one fits your needs best depends on the specific needs that you have. For some, the Apex will be the better controller. For others, the RKE will be a better fit.

Some of the advantages that Curt mentioned are clearly subjective; that's marketing, folks. It's not a personal attack on Digital Aquatics' collective grandmother.

I do agree that CPU word width is a little strange to bring up, but hey, somebody asked.

 

[andywe]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15520497#post15520497 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by phuzzykins
I think this discussion is a great example of why there's space in the market for competitive products.

Neither product is clearly superior to the other on paper in every situation; which one fits your needs best depends on the specific needs that you have. For some, the Apex will be the better controller. For others, the RKE will be a better fit.

Some of the advantages that Curt mentioned are clearly subjective; that's marketing, folks. It's not a personal attack on Digital Aquatics' collective grandmother.

I do agree that CPU word width is a little strange to bring up, but hey, somebody asked.

As I have mentioned many times before, the Apex is a fine product. Preference and need does indeed mena everything. I use what I prefer...opinions are like...well, you get the idea..everyone has one.

 

[wwanthony]

Personally, I don't think any manufacturer should create any type of control appliance (these days) that is not network capable out of the box. This is where we are headed. In fact, I think everything should be Wi-fi enabled. You should not need an adapter. It is another point of control. I may not control outlets via my iPhone that often, but it gives me the option in cases where my observations and decision making can override the conditionals in the control device. Each of us has a unique infrastructure associated with our tanks. No vendor can supply us with a stop-gap solution for all the things that can go wrong. They can only give us options.

CPU word was mentioned for those who understand what it means. It is a critical architectural element for performance and scale. It can dictate what types of enhancements can or cannot be done before another architectural change is required. There are cases when it can help with future-proofing.

 

[andywe]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15520444#post15520444 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by HeneryH
DA keeps talking about the benefit of having the NET module and pH module separate in case of failure. I just don't get it. These things don't fail very often at all. Why don't computers have separate network connectors rather than built-in in case they fail. You wouldn't want to replace your whole computer if the net fails?

Also what do they mean by Apex not being modular? Is it the pH/ORP/Net being on the main controller?

Henry, computers have intergrated components to keep the cost down. It is far less expensive to add a chip to a motherboard rather than manufacture a device. As a computer professional (having worked for 8 years at that same software company Ken does as a Sr. engineer), I can tell you without a doubt this is not advantageous in my opnion. If your net apater or video card in your desktop goes down, then your whole machine has to be serviced. Further, server class machines ( Which I equate these controllers too as the expense we all have in our tanks is of significance), always come with 2 in case one fails...up time and reliability. Components like net ports fail all the time. Own enough computers and you will eventually have a breakdown, just like a car. Now this is not to imply that the apex is using bad components or anything like that, just answering the analogy of why desktop manufacturers do this.

As for modular, yes, I meant the PH, net ect..is not integrated into the same unit, so If I need to move it, replace it, upgrade it I can do so without taking the whole system down. It is a preference I have. Cheers!

 

[NeveSSL]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15520444#post15520444 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by HeneryH
DA keeps talking about the benefit of having the NET module and pH module separate in case of failure. I just don't get it. These things don't fail very often at all. Why don't computers have separate network connectors rather than built-in in case they fail. You wouldn't want to replace your whole computer if the net fails?

Also what do they mean by Apex not being modular? Is it the pH/ORP/Net being on the main controller?

Umm... on any computer that matters, they do. Even with integrated motherboards, you have PCI slots that you can add a nic into should your integrated die.

Brandon