We started using a weather safe monitor to open and close roof, we use the same signal to SGP for weather safe. The issue is that if we get an unsafe signal, the sequence gets aborted, while we would like the option it just needs to pause … and not run end of sequence …
Our setups are not roof restricted so maybe an option to pause in place of for those that do have not enough clearance to park and wait, and in both cases resume after roof re opens …
/Yves
+1 for this.
It should also cover the situation where at start time the sky is closed but clears later during the night.
Regards,
Horia
I thought about this and in my own ROR controller put in an option to re-open when the conditions are ok again. I have never used it in practice, however, since I then realized that I needed a few hours for the equipment temperature to stabilize again. I came to the conclusion that it would be practical if say there was an isolated incident, which is rare, rather than the sustained weather fronts which are the norm.
There is perhaps a broader point that is part of a beta discussion: With the useful new features of setting the start and finish times but with the downside of adding more complications, perhaps there is a case for a queued start that waits for good conditions before running the sequence, with an optional cool-down delay? This would be more universally useful for those times that clear weather occurs after my bedtime and I don’t want to risk opening the roof manually to cool down. (I get grumpy if I do not get enough sleep)
I use PHD for cloud reporting, if I loose a star due to cloud SGP will enter recovery mode. If however it’s raining my weather station closes the roof, I just set a high tolerance for cloud on my weather station.
Mine closes too if it rains, independent on any Windows software. I was speculating that the business of opening and closing a roof, based on weather conditions is equally useful at the beginning of a sequence as it is on introducing a ‘pause, wait and see if it gets better’ mode, rather than complete sequence abort.
So why is this implemented in it’s current form, it adds nothing … any plans on really automate this further?
/Yves