HS/FS - √ - Die eingegebene Gruppen-Adresse ist nicht eindeutig

[Warichet]

Hi,

While working with the HS internal GA, I've created 9 internal objects
100/7/87 ..... 92 and 100/7/104...106.
No problem

I've added another bunch of 9 internal objects
100/8/87 ..... 92 and 100/8/104...106.
I got 9x the message below

Die eingegebene Gruppen-Adresse ist nicht eindeutig

I understand the HS complaints about objects not being unique ? but they are unique.
My manipulation is not correct ? maybe it's not allowed to freely assign GA ? or there are limitations ?

How can I debug this ?

Thank you for putting me right

PS: I noticed that the internal objects are sorted alphabetically and not by numeric GA number, not very convenient and prone to error

PS: "Verweise" points only to ONE object, so I guess it's unique

PS: are there "reserved" words, like "Archive" ?

[MatthiasS]

No, no reserved words.

Do you have other gruop adresses, maybe written as two level adresses?

This is important (from Help)

"dass xxx/yy nur eine andere Schreibweise von xxx/0/yy "

What happens, if you use 101 instead of 100 for the nine new ones?

[Warichet]

Hi Matthias,

No, no reserved words.

OK

Do you have other group adresses, maybe written as two level adresses?

No.
But I do have internal objects used as such, without explicit GA numbers assigned.

What happens, if you use 101 instead of 100 for the nine new ones?

Same problem.
Although I couldn't believe they all 9 give a conflict.
NB: I'm not transfering the project at each test, but using "Prüfen"

I'm using xxAPI and checked the address range, they are in the range of 105/x/x and 185/x/x, so far away.
I tried some variations of your idea, i.e. 105/0/x 100/9/x etc, no luck, until I found that 101/7/91 worked although 101/8/91 doesn't.
Bizarre ?!?
Put everything in the range 101/7/x ->OK
Put everything in the range 101/8/x ->no go, ah !?!
Put everything back in the original range 100/8/x ->No go
It is noticeable that all 9 give an error, not a single address, so I guess the problem is related with the first 2 digits of the GA. Looks like an architectural problem.

Same player, shoot again
101/8/x no go
100/8/x no go
101/7/x OK

Bizarre, hé ? It looks like it's a 2/3 level conflict, but I do NOT use 2 level

Tentative conclusion:
when using an address like 100/7/x,
one must use a range like 101/7/x, no other variation.

PS: what is this KO-Gateway empfangen/senden used for ? An example of usage ?

[MatthiasS]

Do you know that the second level of 3-stage KNX adresses is only allowed between 0 and 7??? Maybe THIS is the problem!

[Warichet]

Do you know that the second level of 3-stage KNX adresses is only allowed between 0 and 7???

Ouups

Any idea about the KO-Gateway empfangen/senden ?
Maybe an example of usage ?

Thank you

[MatthiasS]

Any idea about the KO-Gateway empfangen/senden ?
Maybe an example of usage ?

Thank you

hsmonitor, for example

https://knx-user-forum.de/knx-eib-fo...lisierung.html

DaCom - Database Computing GmbH

[Warichet]

https://knx-user-forum.de/knx-eib-fo...lisierung.html
DaCom - Database Computing GmbH

Thank you very much