Artisan software in R1


#1

Anyone successfully used Artisan software on Mac for the R1 and how does it compare to Roast time?


#2

I’ve used it quite successfully for my last ~20 roasts. I’ve only used RoastTime 3 or 4 times so it’s hard to compare. From what I recall of the earlier version of RT I prefer Artisan. However, I just did a roast with the new version and they’ve definitely improved it a lot. RT is obviously tailored to the Bullet so seems to be a slightly “nicer” experience (very purple!). Artisan supports a lot (10s? 100s?) of roasters so is a bit more general purpose - the upside of that is you can customize just about everything in it. The RoR plot seems to be a bit smoother in Artisan, not sure if that can/will be tweaked in RT. I’ll probably do my next several roasts with RT to form a more solid opinion.

It’s easy enough to use (as I recall it just worked when I plugged it in), so I’d say give it a whirl and see what you think!


#3

Only thing to temember is RoastTime is good to use for our own benefits, Aillio collecting data which can help improve in different ways.
I tried it out 3 times, then i goes back to RoastTime again.
Only things is to me now, i pray for RoastTime being stable soon… have been turbulent with RoastTime.


#4

Based on your responses, I will try both…it would be super cool if you could run them simultaneously and then compare.
Thanks again for the thoughtful responses!


#5

For some reason, Roastime locks up for me when I try to run them both simultaneously. I have not tried this with RTv2 yet…anyone else get both working simultaneously?

-Mark


#6

It is not possible to run two programs at the same time. I know some people say they can do this, but then they would be getting wrong data.


#7

I have some success with Artisan on the mac. That being said, I’m looking forward to using Roast Time on the mac once it grows into the feature(s) I want. The main reason I’ve been using Artisan is to automate by bean temp instead of time. Where I live the external temp and humidity swing greatly and I roast in the garage. I feel that the external temp/humidity effect the progression of my roast, so watching the temp of the beans instead of timing seems to keep things more consistent for me.


#8

RT 2.0.8:
Pro:

  1. Tailored to the Bullet and so is more in tune with the Bullet than Artisan
  2. Cloud based system in sync with Roast.World. Better overall record/ data keeping

Con:

  1. No profile program to automate a roast, like Alarm files in Artisan
  2. Limited detailed analysis of the roast
  3. Kind of “stuck” between the old V1 roaster and the new IBTS roasters in that the newer IBTS roasters are incorrectly labeled “Drum Temp” when in fact it is the Bean Temp when roasting. So you have two Bean temp probe data (new IBTS and old traditional BT probe) and no Drum Temp. ROR is based on the old probe. Not sure what use two BT probes are at this point. It will be interesting to see how RT deals with these two systems in the future (those who keep their old DT and BT probes vs the newer roasters.)

Artisan 1.5
Pro:

  1. Much better customization ( graph, sampling, setting phases)
  2. Use of profile or “Alarm files” to automate a roast
  3. More detailed analysis (use of weight, volume, density to calculate roast level, AUC etc)

Con:

  1. Not cloud based. Each roast stands as a separate file. Harder to share
  2. Not specifically written for the Bullet and so requires more work to set up.

Right now, I am stuck with RT 2.0.8 as Artisan 1.5 is not compatible with the new IBTS roasters

Conclusion: Right now, Artisan 1.5 has the edge in my opinion based on the more robust features. However, if RT developers could keep the present RT 2 setup and add the features in Artisan of (1) Profile programs (like Alarm files to automate roast), (2) More detailed roast analysis tools (like weight, volume, density, ambient conditions, Roast grade determination, AUC like Artisan), and (3) better graph customization ( like x,y axis, color shading of phases and first crack shading like Artisan) then RT would by far be the better program.


#9

still works with the * RoasTime Legacy Software (Windows Only, No Longer Updated)

however not on mac.


#10

RT2 will feature ways to automate the roast by temperature in a few releases. This is being worked on now.
If there are specific functions for roast analysis that you feel are useful, please let us know and we will consider to add it.


#11

Thank you. For automating roasts the following would be helpful:
Changes to P,D,F based on

  1. Temperature trigger (most helpful. This one is the most important. If only one option is available it would be this.)
  2. Trigger based on Event (YT, FCs, FCe) The trigger can be based on the time of the event or a specific time after the event. ( Second most helpful. )
  3. Time trigger (least helpful of the 3)

Roast analysis:

  1. Similar to Artisan/Roast /Properties/General A way to record pre and post weight, volume, density and then derive a roast report similar to Artisan/File/Report/Roast

(Extra requests if possible)
Graph:

  1. Having x and y reference lines.
  2. Shading option for FCs to FCe, SCs to SCe
  3. Predetermined shading option for phases: Drying time (YT), Maillard YT to FCs, FCs to end (similar to Artisan/Config/Phases)

Thank you. The Bullet is a state of the art, incredible roaster! I am looking forward to future RT releases!


#12

Wow! I’ve never used Artisan and I’m just trying to understand RoasTime, so I had no frame of reference for helping with features on RoasTime. But, I like everything that @pnrenton said.

One thing to add, if it’s not there already: editing an existing profile and/or designing one from scratch would be great. That way, you don’t have to record a perfect live performance - you can get close, then tweak it, or simply program it to do what you want.

Now that I think about it, configurable alarms would be great. Like the time or temperature trigger @pnrenton suggested, but tied to a sound file or various prerecorded beep sounds. That would allow, say, one profile to be easily used for various roast levels of the same beans, with prompts or beeps defined for the time or temp of completion for each level.


#13

Thank you celticcupcoffee! Before the Bullet, I roasted on a Hottop and made extensive use of Alarm files. Thank you for mentioning that. That is one more thing that I would put at the top of the list for RT development. Please! Please! have an Alarm file equivalent for RT. Being able to trigger P,D,F events precisely and reliably based on Time, Temp or other events like YT, FCs, FCe, ROR levels enables you to roast with precision and make repeatable roasts. If you find errors in your roast you can make proactive tweaks to the Alarm file and improve the next roast.

As celticcupcoffee says, rather than recording a live performance and using it for "Playback"as is done now, it would be nice to have a program to make a list all of the P,D,F events you want to control for a roast based on the triggers that I have previously listed and then run that program to see the results. Each roast profile could be saved, tweaked and run over and over.

Again, when I roasted with Artisan, the Alarm files were a great way to automate a roast and get reliable, repeatable results. It was one of the greatest items about Artisan. I highly recommend that RT programmers put an Alarm file equivalent high on their development list.


#14

I just noticed v1.6.1 has support for IBTS and v1.5-v2.0 Aillio Roasters.


#15

Has anyone tried the new 1.6.2?


#16

The code change in 1.6.2 was for a Phidgets problem on MacOS - I don’t see anything related to the Bullet there in the change log. So no. Not tried it but no plans to.


#17

Version 1.6.1 is the release that included support for the Bullet with IBTS.

Artisan release excerpt: “Adds support for the… the Aillio R1 v2 firmware incl. the new IBTS IR sensor”.

But, I also saw a statement in their “warnings” list for the Aillio that said you must have the Legacy USB Drivers installed for Artisan to work properly. I don’t know how much of a problem that presents or if it is any problem at all. I just mention it since I saw it on their Supported Machines page for the Bullet:
https://artisan-scope.org/machines/aillio/


#18

If you install the legacy drivers, RT2 won’t connect so you pretty much have to decide which path you want to follow or keep swapping drivers in and out like a Windows maniac…

For now I’m sticking with RT on the Bullet.


#19

I agree Stuart and learned the hard-way today by attempting to follow the path of installing Artisan, the required Legacy USB drivers, etc. Bottom-line, Artisan (for me ) didn’t work with the Aillio Legacy USB Driver and would not recognize the Bullet’s data. But worse than that, I had quite the challenge of restoring the newer Aillio Driver to get my Bullet communicating properly again to RoasTime. :crazy_face:

Messing with the Aillio Drivers can lead down a rat-hole that can take a lot of effort to recover from and I was following the documented processes to do it. It is just not worth it IMO and Artisan (while deep with options) is quite complex. Plus, the Aillio software changes so often, that it begs the question “how often will Artisan not be current with the Bullet’s changes”? Moral of my story, “don’t tinker with that stuff”. :upside_down_face:


#20

If you become absurdly familiar with Device Manager you can juggle the drivers in and out but it’s almost easier to have two laptops on hand for Artisan and RT. I’m not sure if the Mac experience would be easier but I have other things for my Mac to do.

I do like having my roast history available in the cloud, non-local although I would appreciate option of not having them shareable by default.

If Aillio can get their version of Alarm events running and replaying by temp I probably wouldn’t look back. Having the banding on the graph or an estimate of when events like drying end, FC and SC might take place based on current projections would seal the deal for me. Being able to export the graph as a PDF would be nice instead of screen grabs or copying a URL but I guess that can also be done via the browser. If there’s a suitable place to post enhancement requests officially please point me in the appropriate direction. :+1: