No offense, but perhaps others can easily help me out without effort and myself could be sitting hours with trial and error. I thought it was the purpose of a forum to help each other, maybe I know something that another user does not know and can help him, too. And I did already in other cases.
As I cannot see the result of this code-addition directly I may never know if it is working or not.
I can only guess: is this the right solution for a 3rd sensor?
{% set sensor1 = state_attr('sensor.energy_production_today_2', 'watts') %}
{% set sensor2 = state_attr('sensor.energy_production_today_3', 'watts') %}
{% set sensor3 = state_attr('sensor.energy_production_today_4', 'watts') %}
{% set ns = namespace(output={}) %}
{% for time, value in sensor1.items() %}
{% set ns.output = dict({time: value}, **ns.output) %}
{% endfor %}
{% for time, value in sensor2.items() %}
{% if time in ns.output %}
{% set ns.output = dict({time: ns.output[time] + value}, **ns.output) %}
{% else %}
{% set ns.output = dict({time: value}, **ns.output) %}
{% endif %}
{% endfor %}
{% for time, value in sensor3.items() %}
{% if time in ns.output %}
{% set ns.output = dict({time: ns.output[time] + value}, **ns.output) %}
{% else %}
{% set ns.output = dict({time: value}, **ns.output) %}
{% endif %}
{% endfor %}
{{ ns.output }}
But there is a big difference between
“Please do this for me” or I tried this and it doesn’t work, I have a question. You have to show initiative or maybe it’s just the wrong system for you
Just letting other people do the work, I don’t think that’s the idea for a forum.
I think it is silly to modify a piece of code without having a clue just to present some kind of “own work”. To modify the code as I did I just had to copy and paste twice and change two numbers. That is not my understanding of “work”. If my addition of another sensor was right it was mere luck. Anybody else could have done that in a few seconds.
In the time you criticized me you could have done that a few times probably if this was the solution.
The problem for me is, that I do not know if my guess was right as I do not know how to confirm this either. The code is working so far even without this part.
By the way I did not say “please do this for me”, I just mentioned that I do not know how to add more sensors. If anything I just asked for a hint or an explanation.
{% set sensor1 = state_attr('sensor.energy_production_today_2', 'watts') %}
{% set sensor2 = state_attr('sensor.energy_production_today_3', 'watts') %}
{% set sensor3 = state_attr('sensor.energy_production_today_4', 'watts') %}
{% set sensor4 = state_attr('sensor.energy_production_today_5', 'watts') %}
{% set ns = namespace(output={}) %}
{% for time, value in sensor1.items() %}
{% set sum_value = value %}
{% if time in sensor2 %}
{% set sum_value = sum_value + sensor2[time] %}
{% endif %}
{% if time in sensor3 %}
{% set sum_value = sum_value + sensor3[time] %}
{% endif %}
{% if time in sensor4 %}
{% set sum_value = sum_value + sensor4[time] %}
{% endif %}
{% set ns.output = dict(ns.output, **{time: sum_value}) %}
{% endfor %}
{% for time, value in sensor2.items() %}
{% if time not in sensor1 %}
{% set sum_value = value %}
{% if time in sensor3 %}
{% set sum_value = sum_value + sensor3[time] %}
{% endif %}
{% if time in sensor4 %}
{% set sum_value = sum_value + sensor4[time] %}
{% endif %}
{% set ns.output = dict(ns.output, **{time: sum_value}) %}
{% endif %}
{% endfor %}
{% for time, value in sensor3.items() %}
{% if time not in sensor1 and time not in sensor2 %}
{% set sum_value = value %}
{% if time in sensor4 %}
{% set sum_value = sum_value + sensor4[time] %}
{% endif %}
{% set ns.output = dict(ns.output, **{time: sum_value}) %}
{% endif %}
{% endfor %}
{% for time, value in sensor4.items() %}
{% if time not in sensor1 and time not in sensor2 and time not in sensor3 %}
{% set ns.output = dict(ns.output, **{time: value}) %}
{% endif %}
{% endfor %}
{{ ns.output }}
I noticed a reoccurring pattern in the last couple of days: The integration overestimates for the next day, at least 10kWh or more.
The reason: It wildly overestimates in the morning.
Today, for example, it estimated that we’ll already have had a solar yield of 15kWh at only 7.30am. In reality we didn’t even have 1kWh yet. The sun only came out 41 minutes ago…
If I expose the raw variables that generate the prediction (temp, wind speed, irradiance, pressure, etc) in the diagnostics would you be willing to share it with me? Right now this is unactionable for me as I don’t have such an issue and cannot debug it.
At any rate, for it to be so wildly off do you think that all the parameters are correct?
Hi all, I’m trying to replace my Solcast integration with this and while the data looks fine, I’m struggling to work out how to extract the half-hourly forecasts for my apexcharts-card graph. Here’s the code I’m using currently for Solcast:
data_generator: |
var today = entity.attributes.detailedForecast.map((start, index) => {
return [new Date(start["period_start"]).getTime(), entity.attributes.detailedForecast[index]["pv_estimate"]];
});
var data = today
return data;
Obviously this integration doesn’t have a detailedForecast section in the forecast attributes, so how do I extract the correct data for the graph?
Hello,
I also had the problem of the slow Apex card. I then created a horizontal stack and divided the Apex charts into today and tomorrow. Made it a little nicer for my wife and the washing machine. You have to set the threshold for yourself. My Apex chart card is here.
I no longer have any delay.
You could probably display a whole week like this.
Greetings
Rainer
So far, the predicted solar from this integration is way too high compared to what my panels are generating (e.g. today is still 32 kWh predicted, actual will be ~23 kWh), and way higher than the Solcast integration predicted. Is this common? I set it up with identical settings to Solcast.
Ah well my Solcast azimuth is 155, which I think means I need 205 for this integration? I changed it to 205 and the predicted solar actually went up by 2.5 kWh…
this has been raised/flagged anecdotally before and rany has made a suggestion to change the Integration to allow him check this out…not sure anyone replied or took him up so maybe you want to get involved…
For the “today” value i am more or less happy the value from this addon. Mostly they are not farther away than 4% (at an 140kWh energy production)
Do not forget this is a forecast, even weather forecasts (temperature/precipitation) only have a probability between 70-90% for the next 24h.
Which had confused me first, was that this addon and solcast have different names for the sensors for the days after tomorrow.
Solcast uses like “sensor.solcast_pv_forecast_prognose_tag_3” while this addon uses “sensor.owsun_fc_energy_d2” for the 3rd forcasted day.
I have some changes I’ll make public that should improve the accuracy further, and thanks for the comparison with Solcast. Right now they’re just a WIP, most likely I’ll dump it with the multiple PV array changes.
Maybe I’m misunderstanding but your algorithm looks wrong. The description on the Solcast website:
The direction on the horizon the PV modules are facing, expressed in degrees. Values must be between -180 and 180. 0 is north, 180 is south. Eastward facing = negative values. Westward facing = positive values. For example, -90 is due east.
So for me (25 degrees west of south), I had to use 180-25 = 155. This open-meteo integration says:
