OpenSprinkler Forums OpenSprinkler Unified Firmware Some questions about the Weather integration Reply To: Some questions about the Weather integration



Hi Peter,

thanks for your answer, that helps out a lot. I could not find the information that the new method uses forecasted data instead of yesterdays data. But with that in mind everything makes more sense.

But I still have a strange effect when trying to confirm what I’m seeing.

My Baseline (configured in OS) are: Hum 65%, Rain 0mm, Temp 21°C
So I called:,10.92549&wto="h":50,"t":50,"r":100,"bh":65,"bt":70,"br":0

The location is taken from /ja API call the other values from my config and converted to imperial.

The result I got was:


So it wants to reduce to 0% water level.

Humidity: 65% baseline – 81.2% actual = -16,2% * 50% weighting = -8,1%
Temp: 70°F baseline – 60,5°F actual = 9,5°F colder than baseline = 9,5 * 4% * 50% weighting = -19%
Rain: 0.39 difference to baseline (0) = 39 * 2% = -78%

Overall 100% – 78% Rain – 19% Temp – 8,1% Hum = -5,1% watering which obviously bounds to 0%.

That does make sense to me. But that’s not what I’m seeing in the interface. If I do system diagnostics (and I guess that the values just reflect the returns from what weather call and that just the captions are wrong) I see the following:

Hum 55%, Temp 18.9°C, Precip 3mm (beware of the unit change) and it wants to water 21%.
If I do the same calculation as above:
Hum: 65% – 55% = 10% * 50% = +5%
Temp: 70°F – 66°F = 4°F colder = 4 * 4% * 50% = -8%
Rain: 0.12 inch = 12 * 2% = -24%
Total: 73% watering

So I do have two problems here. 1. I’m not sure why I get other values when calling the weather service than my OS. Granted my call was half an hour after the last successful call of OS, but that should not have such an impact with a weather forecast? 2. My calculations seem off. They are based on the explainations in the forum but might be wrong.

Every input is greatly appreciated. I’ll dig into the source of the weather service in the meantime.

As for the local UI assets: Thanks. Just was to stupid to find that article in the docs 😉