This site is now in read-only archive mode. Please move all discussion, and create a new account at the new Victron Community site.
Hi
Great to see new GX-product to replace colour-control. My question is about performance and specifically cpu cores, speed and RAM. Is Ekrano identical in performance vice with Cerbo? I am planning to replace installation with raspberry pi with standard Victron GX and like to run quite large node-RED etc so was looking for Cerbo. If Ekrano performance is equal or even better I could order Ekrano :)
The whole point of the remote screen is you can place the touch screen in a remote "user' friendly location, and not have top run all your cables and wires which are normally down in the electrical area, not where the person is checking the screen.
No way would I want to have to run all my cables and network cables to the touch screen location ???
There are also many installations where the GX Touch is placed right next so the Cerbo.or it is not a big problem to route all cables to the place of the screen.
The Ekrano can also be used in old installations to replace the CCGX.
The datasheet says:
"(...) it is the most powerful GX device to date (...)"
It supports up to 25 VE.direct devices which is more than the Cerbo GX (15) and the same as the MulitPlus-GX.
I have 4+ Ve.direct devices to connect so am scrambling to figure out a solution. I hope I don't get more Ve.direct devices at this point since the Ekranos is so limited in connectivity.
I'm also quite frustrated with the VE.direct cables randomly falling out with just a little vehicle motion. There's nothing holding them in their slots except friction.
There must be a limit at some point. (The Cerbo also have only 3 ports)
You say that you need 4 ports, the next one needs 5 and the next only 1.
You can easily add more by using VE.direct to USB (and a USB-Hub).
Adding more and more VE.drect ports would make the Ekrano bigger and more expensive and many users don't need that many ports.
Yep, there were some bad design decisions surrounding connectors. I went to great efforts to secure them.
Image Caption
Nice looking unit i see more VE.cans surely this is now going to make the unit a lot more money and hobble the like of us that have 4 temp sensors in the Cerbo GX. Now my mind turns to obsolescence I wonder how long Victron would continue producing Cerbo GX units? @Russell Brown im comfortable having everything in one it makes for a neater install and the GX is always the hub and doesn’t matter where the screen is as you can have access in a remote area, I’m using a first gen iPad via my LAN IP as I can’t use any Victron apps or VRM access as it’s too old, via Lan IP I can move this anywhere just which they had a dark mode native so I could do it but on the other had took an iPad that wasn’t fit for toffee and made it a 100% usable again.
The Ekrano GX will replace the very old Color Control GX and I guess the CCGX will be EOL soon.
The GX product page has been updated:
There was a real world report from a power user that was running his Cerbo GX up to 82% CPU utilisation on its 2 cores. That dropped to 41% utilisation on the 4 cores of the Ekrano.
This was still an acceptable load on the Cerbo GX by the way, the issues really present themselves when CPU utilisation touches 100%
This is fantastic, makes me appreciate my Ekrano more ; will now use the CCGX for an older installation
Finally received first ekrano. What a nice piece of metal. Feels really solid. 
Or, when you try to install the spring clips and the one on the right side (facing the rear) won't install because it impinges on the relay connectors which are different that is shown in the install manual which has recessed connectors. The black box connectors as shown on yours AND on mine stick out too far so the spring clip mount won't attach. - Woops
I doubt that this design is very user-friendly. How to access the connections? Do you have space to get behind the device, work with a mirror or do you pull it out of the front opening with all the cables? Installation in a control cabinet door is most suitable, but this requires correspondingly long cables.
A new edition of the Cerbo GX would be desirable. Slightly larger but deeper built. This would make it possible to replace it with a more spacious device with the same need for mounting space (possibly top-hat rail device) with better free space for the connections at the top and bottom. Same increase in performance with four cores but without reducing connections (temperature sensors). Better cooling with a metal housing certainly doesn't hurt either - see the Bluetooth problems in the current, very compact, encapsulated Cerbo GX. A separate monitor is also optimal - it doesn't bother you if the separation isn't necessary, but it improves accessibility in any case.
It really depends on the installation. It was remarkable how long the CCGX demand has continued after the launch of the Cerbo GX. Some people really prefer that style, and it only has a single core! That was the reason for the Ekrano design.
The GX device family is not lacking for options now.
And we'll continue working on the range.
I ordered and received my Ekrano GX about a month or so ago.
I haven't installed it yet since there are two install options ONLY
1) use back bracket installed on the rear of the unit requiring rear access!
2) use spring clips on the side which will PERMANENTLY mount it on a blind wall opening (most undesireable to say the least since most of us often need rear device access especially to add/move/change cables).
So, nice device but mounting options are very limited at this time. I brought this up with the US rep who did contact Victron directly who admitted it was 'not ideal'
Why is it a permanent installation with the springs? You should be able to pull the Ekrano out everytime.
But I agree that it would be nice to have a wall mount enclosure to install it on a solid brick wall.
Just finished my first Ekrano installation.
The increase in performance is night and day. It's almost as good as my RPi running Venus OS.
A major (and incredibly frustrating) bugbear for me is it only supporting 2.4GHz on WiFi. This was a ridiculous oversight and non-sensical from an engineering POV.
Many businesses and locations are only running 5.8GHz WiFi. Default hotspot on most mobile devices is 5.8GHz and they cannot run 2.4 and 5.8GHz simultaneously.
5.8GHz is well established and the chips cost almost nothing. The unit should have had a standard dual frequency chip. If anything, 2.4GHz is on the way out.
To be fair, 2.4GHz provides broader coverage, greater range, and better penetration of obstructions like walls and other enclosures, so there's substantially less occurrence of dead zones or dropouts within the various possible installation environments of these devices. Additionally, 2.4GHz is (in general) less power-hungry than 5.8GHz, and these devices are most commonly going to be installed into power-limited environments be they mobile or off-grid or etc.
Since no one is gaming or streaming Netflix on these devices (yet, at least) where the substantially higher bandwidth of 5.8GHz would make an appreciable difference, I can certainly see why the relatively substantial additional cost and power requirement would outweigh the negligible benefit of adding in a dual-band chip, at least from an R&D perspective.
What will be interesting is the new 6GHz WiFi. But afik range and power issues will be worse than with 5GHz.
Is 2.4GHz dead? Not for a long time. The upgrade cost is far too high and, in many cases, not justified
Yes, your mobile devices will switch seamlessly between 2.4 and 5.8GHz when connecting to a WAP.
What I am referring to is, if you turn on mobile hotspot on your smartphone for example; it will only broadcast and receive on one or the other.
You have to manually change it from the default, which is 5.8GHz (depending on OS/model is will say 5GHz) to 2.4GHz for your Cerbo/Ekrano to connect to it.
@Justin Cook I wholeheatedly agree that 2.4GHz has better range and lower power consumption, but to omit a dual band chip is silly.
It's not about needing the bandwidth. It's about what is becoming more common.
At client installations, I increasingly see wireless mesh network being deployed that are (wrongly IMHO) only broadcasting on 5.8GHz.
