June 24, 2021 at 1:03 pm #70509
I’ve went through Demo and I didn’t find a flexible way to make two stations working in parallel. For example: let say I have 5 stations and I want s1, s2 and s3 works consecutive (sequential mode) and s4 and s5 working in parallel (sequential mode not checked) starting after s3 is finished. And finally I want this to be repeated more than once in the same manner. Setting stations as mentioned above will make s1, s4 and s5 working in parallel and this is not what I want.
Is there a way to make what I want in a intuitive way without splitting stations to different programs and complicated calculations when needed program to start?
MiroJuly 8, 2021 at 8:38 pm #70623
How would the system know when to run s4 and s5 since they are set to work in parallel with other zones but placed to the back of the line? I haven’t even hooked my system up yet, still in the box, shipping was quicker than I expected so got it earlier than my project calls for (thanks Ray, you are doing a wonderful job), so I haven’t any experience yet except for playing around with the Demo before I purchased, but from what I remember, might I suggest the following:
1) Maybe wire zones 4 and 5 together and set them to sequential mode?
Or better yet…
2) Move s4 and s5 to zones s1 and s2 while moving all the other zones down 2, then check sequential mode for s2 (the old s5) and all the other following zones while unchecking sequential mode for s1 (the old s4), that way the old “s4 and s5” (now s1 and s2) will both run first together and s3 (the old s1) will wait till s2 (the old s5) is done? Does the old s4 and s5 run the same amount of time every time? If so, then it wouldn’t matter which one you put on zone 1, but if one zones runs longer than the other, make sure it gets moved to s2 that way s3 waits for it to finish. This way would allow the old s4 and s5 to be on independent programs and you would have more flexibility than if you wired them both to the same zone.
Hope this helps.July 9, 2021 at 10:06 am #70625
Yes, this obviously can be a partial workaround but it is not flexible. Changing wiring is far from flexible. About other suggestion… not good too. What if you want station 2 to work in parallel with station 4 – then the only solution will be changing wiring…
My current irrigation controller can handle this. I can set any station to work with any other in parallel and act as 1 station (for example s2 with s4, in this case the order of irrigating in case of 5 stations will be s1, s2 and s4 in parallel, s3, s5). And I don’t have to change wiring.
One more thing I miss in OS is support of tipping bucket sensor. May be I am not right but at first look I don’t see such a support.
MiroJuly 9, 2021 at 10:55 am #70626
Just want to add something to my example. I can set s4 to work with s2. It looks like it is the same but using the above example my current irrigation controller will act as follows – s1, s3, s4 in parallel with s2, s5.
MiroJuly 9, 2021 at 2:10 pm #70628
My current irrigation controller can handle this
What controller are you currently using…. I couldn’t find one that does this and have Ethernet capabilities.July 9, 2021 at 2:39 pm #70629
My current controller is DIY (designed by me – not commercial and not targeted to be). It was designed 8-9 years ago and it is based on Microchip MCU and Microchip TCP/IP Stack. It is still working but I stopped to deal with it as I don’t have time to develop new features. I want to change it with one that have Home Assistant support and wireless connectivity. Actually it is a part of a module based DIY automation system using CAN bus. Modules are connected to WEB server (Microchip TCP/IP stack based) using CAN bus. I have started changing all my modules with Home Assistant compatible devices. And my irrigation controller is one of the two modules left to be changed.
I saw OS has Home Assistant support and I want to migrate to it. Stations working in parallel in a flexible way is one thing that I want to have as well Tipping bucket support.
MiroJuly 9, 2021 at 4:02 pm #70631
Sounds like you got skills…. Open Sprinkler uses open source software. Maybe you can contribute to the software by adding the program features you need, then the whole community would benefit.
I returned several other brands of ethernet sprinkler controllers due to them being way too limited on zone and programming control. I saw OS is able to do most of what I want and that it is being actively developed so I went with it. I would love to have the detailed features you are talking about. Then OS would be a perfect choice for any irrigation needs, and would blow big commercial irrigation controllers out of the water.
Maybe OS could be preloaded with two different UI? One being for people who mainly use it for yard sprinklers and have a simple UI, and the other for a more complicated precise total control UI used in agri irrigation.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.