Please Note This forum exists for community support for the Mango product family and the Radix IoT Platform. Although Radix IoT employees participate in this forum from time to time, there is no guarantee of a response to anything posted here, nor can Radix IoT, LLC guarantee the accuracy of any information expressed or conveyed. Specific project questions from customers with active support contracts are asked to send requests to support@radixiot.com.

My Problem is fixed with bacnet4j 5 thank you.

It is possible again to add proprietary values:

final ObjectPropertyTypeDefinition o = new ObjectPropertyTypeDefinition( ObjectType.lifeSafetyZone, true, new PropertyTypeDefinition( PropertyIdentifier.forId(MY_SPECIAL_VALUE), CharacterString.class, true)); ObjectProperties.getObjectPropertyTypeDefinitions(ObjectType.lifeSafetyPoint).add(o); final ObjectPropertyTypeDefinition o2 = new ObjectPropertyTypeDefinition( ObjectType.lifeSafetyPoint, true, new PropertyTypeDefinition( PropertyIdentifier.forId(MY_SPECIAL_VALUE), CharacterString.class, true)); ObjectProperties.getObjectPropertyTypeDefinitions(ObjectType.lifeSafetyPoint).add(o2);

in this example above MY_SPECIAL_VALUE is a list (SequenceOf<CharacterString>)

Any javadocs? or user manual? Already familiar with Bacnet protocol.

Hi guys, its been a while since I opened this thread. I am sorry for my late answer but I was very busy lately..
I have followed the call @terrypacker has mentioned and wanted to let you konw how I implemnted my BACnetDevice class which extends from the RemoteDevice back then. I am sure there is a better way but for me it is working. I guess that there are not many cases in which someone really needs to "extend" from Remotedevice.
But...
I'll have a closer look in the next weeks cause I'll do a littlebit refactoring in my code, if I can get a better solution I'll post the progress here. Just in case someone needs to know :)

So my current implementation:

In the constructor of my own class I am forcing to implement the missing properties.

public BACnetDevice(LocalDevice localDevice, int instanceNumber, Address address, Segmentation segmentation, int vendorIdentifier,int maxAPDULengthAccepted) { super(localDevice, instanceNumber, address); this.setDeviceProperty(PropertyIdentifier.maxApduLengthAccepted, new UnsignedInteger(maxAPDULengthAccepted)); this.setDeviceProperty(PropertyIdentifier.segmentationSupported, segmentation); this.setDeviceProperty(PropertyIdentifier.vendorIdentifier, new UnsignedInteger(vendorIdentifier)); }

By the listener I am fetching the needed properties from the existing instanz

@Override public void iAmReceived(RemoteDevice d) { BACnetDevice bacnetDevice = new BACnetDevice(localDevice, d.getInstanceNumber(), d.getAddress(), d.getSegmentationSupported(), d.getVendorIdentifier(), d.getMaxAPDULengthAccepted()); waitingRoomBacnetDevices.put(bacnetDevice.getInstanceNumber(), bacnetDevice); LOG.info("Remote device " + d.getInstanceNumber() + " registered in waiting room of LocalDevice"); }

Hmm Crickets. I moved on to the Bacnet Stack (C lang) because they have documentation and examples. Got my first WhoIS/Iam working with the BDT, defined the Device Object etc. Sorry BACnet4j didn't work out for me.

Any suggestions on this? I found out that I was using the wrong device ID, but other wise, I believe the code is correct. However, it still doesn't connect.

Hey @terrypacker,

Please help to resolve the above queries related to BACne MS/TP.

Update: if I request confirmed notifications instead of unconfirmed the simulator does include the correct address.

The question still remains, then: should bacnet4j be ignoring the address (or lack of) in unconfirmed COV notifications, or should the simulator be specifying the address in unconfirmed notifications too?

@Vihangi thanks for providing more detail unfortunately I have not used those parts of BACnet4J so there isn't much I can do to help.

How are you setting up the multiple local devices? Here is some sample code I've used before but not thoroughly vetted in terms of a device missing a message.

List<InterfaceAddress> usable = BacnetIpUtils.listUsableBACnetInterfaces(); Assume.assumeTrue(usable.size() > 0); InterfaceAddress address = usable.get(0); String bindAddress = address.getAddress().toString().split("/")[1]; String broadcastAddress = address.getBroadcast().toString().split("/")[1]; //Configure the first network, ensure we set reuse address IpNetwork networkOne = new IpNetworkBuilder() .withLocalBindAddress(bindAddress) .withBroadcast(broadcastAddress, address.getNetworkPrefixLength()) .withLocalNetworkNumber(1).withPort(9000).withReuseAddress(true).build(); Transport transportOne = new DefaultTransport(networkOne); LocalDevice localDeviceOne = new LocalDevice(1, transportOne); IpNetwork networkTwo = new IpNetworkBuilder() .withLocalBindAddress(bindAddress) .withBroadcast(broadcastAddress, address.getNetworkPrefixLength()) .withLocalNetworkNumber(1).withPort(9000).withReuseAddress(true).build(); Transport transportTwo = new DefaultTransport(networkTwo); LocalDevice localDeviceTwo = new LocalDevice(2, transportTwo); localDeviceOne.initialize(); localDeviceTwo.initialize();

@terrypacker said in Multiple devices on one transport:

But we also all creating many local devices in case you want to use them in different data sources.

I'm not sure what you meant here.

If it helps, I really only need a LocalDevice at all because that seems to be what's required by the library for communicating with RemoteDevices. I will be not be populating the shared or multiple LocalDevices with additional objects.

My original plan was to have one LocalDevice per network adapter that might be used. For most systems this would mean just one LocalDevice.

Is there any reason to have multiple LocalDevices (which I assume requires its own device number each) if I'm not going to be actually exposing any objects?

I'm essentially only interested in reading from or writing to other BACnet devices on the network.

Thanks terrypacher.
Yes, may pc address is 192.168.254.177. Use the 0.0.0.0 for LocalBindAddress can run normally.
But why can not use local address to bind for linux, I will think it and try to find the answer.