Hi
I have a pi running weewx 2.6 with about 3 years worth of data taken from
my Vantage station
I have recently installed weewx 3.8.0 on a shuttle pc running in simulator
mode. I also installed using the wee extention utility the forcast and cmon
sevices and owfss
The Pi has 4 extra 1
On Thursday, 8 February 2018 00:44:35 UTC+10, Steve Barge wrote:
>
> Looks like my pressure and barometer readings are outside the limit
> values, but I wouldn't think this should affect the monthly reports.
>
Any fields with values outside the QC limits are set to None, there could
be an
Fantastic - thanks for finding that! I'll update that template for now.
On Thursday, February 8, 2018 at 8:34:51 AM UTC-5, gjr80 wrote:
>
> Aha, the problem is your baromater data (or lack thereof), but the effect
> is not in the way I was expecting. The answer is in the
>
Aha, the problem is your baromater data (or lack thereof), but the effect
is not in the way I was expecting. The answer is in the
skins/Standard/NOAA/NOAA-YYY-MM.txt.tmpl template file, the meat of the
template is:
HEAT COOL AVG
MEAN DEG DEG WIND DOM
DAY TEMP HIGH TIME LOW TIME DAYS DAYS
Hi Gary -
Thanks for the reply. I write all of my files to a temp file system, so if
I reboot, they are all deleted and rebuilt by weewx. I've rebooted several
times and each time the January report looks the same (missing data from
the 16th on and there is nothing in the February report).
I don't know what changed, but it is running now 48 hours with RC5 and all
is fine.
El martes, 6 de febrero de 2018, 13:52:29 (UTC+1), mwall escribió:
>
> On Tuesday, February 6, 2018 at 7:29:04 AM UTC-5, Ruben Navarro Huedo
> wrote:
>>
>> Mismas versiones que yo pero en mi caso no es estable.
FYI there are also three similar occurrences in the yearly NOAA template
n Thursday, 8 February 2018 16:42:34 UTC+2, Tom Keffer wrote:
> I'll have a closer look at that template, I would have thought there may have
> been a more robust way to achieve the same ends.
>>
>>
> Good
>
> I'll have a closer look at that template, I would have thought there may have
> been a more robust way to achieve the same ends.
>
>
Good sleuthing!
Don't know why I chose 'barometer', because there is indeed a better way:
do the check on dateTime, which is required for every record. So, it
