Welcome to the Cumulus Support forum.
Latest Cumulus MX V4 release 4.4.2 (build 4085) - 12 March 2025
Latest Cumulus MX V3 release 3.28.6 (build 3283) - 21 March 2024
Legacy Cumulus 1 release 1.9.4 (build 1099) - 28 November 2014
(a patch is available for 1.9.4 build 1099 that extends the date range of drop-down menus to 2030)
Download the Software (Cumulus MX / Cumulus 1 and other related items) from the Wiki
If you are posting a new Topic about an error or if you need help PLEASE read this first viewtopic.php?p=164080#p164080
Latest Cumulus MX V4 release 4.4.2 (build 4085) - 12 March 2025
Latest Cumulus MX V3 release 3.28.6 (build 3283) - 21 March 2024
Legacy Cumulus 1 release 1.9.4 (build 1099) - 28 November 2014
(a patch is available for 1.9.4 build 1099 that extends the date range of drop-down menus to 2030)
Download the Software (Cumulus MX / Cumulus 1 and other related items) from the Wiki
If you are posting a new Topic about an error or if you need help PLEASE read this first viewtopic.php?p=164080#p164080
Solar settings - observations
Moderator: mcrossley
-
BCJKiwi
- Posts: 1259
- Joined: Mon 09 Jul 2012 8:40 pm
- Weather Station: Davis VP2 Cabled
- Operating System: Windows 10 Pro
- Location: Auckland, New Zealand
- Contact:
Solar settings - observations
After much trial and error, I arrived at the Cumulus1 settings of;
Sun Threshold 75%
Sun Min 50 W/m2
Trans Factor 0.87
These settings came across to MX.
When switching back and forth between C1 and MX I noticed MX produced a lower theoretical curve than C1.
Have increased Trans Factor to 0.89 which is still very slightly lower than C1 @ 0.87. Tried setting it to 0.9 but that produced a much greater change.
So, presumably with the change to MX the code for calculating trans factor is different so an adjustment to your settings may be required.
Puzzled by the (relatively) big step between 0.89 and 0.9 (did not try 0.90).
Sun Threshold 75%
Sun Min 50 W/m2
Trans Factor 0.87
These settings came across to MX.
When switching back and forth between C1 and MX I noticed MX produced a lower theoretical curve than C1.
Have increased Trans Factor to 0.89 which is still very slightly lower than C1 @ 0.87. Tried setting it to 0.9 but that produced a much greater change.
So, presumably with the change to MX the code for calculating trans factor is different so an adjustment to your settings may be required.
Puzzled by the (relatively) big step between 0.89 and 0.9 (did not try 0.90).
- mcrossley
- Posts: 14388
- Joined: Thu 07 Jan 2010 9:44 pm
- Weather Station: Davis VP2/WLL
- Operating System: Bullseye Lite rPi
- Location: Wilmslow, Cheshire, UK
- Contact:
Re: Solar settings - observations
Is your latitude set exactly the same?
- steve
- Cumulus Author
- Posts: 26672
- Joined: Mon 02 Jun 2008 6:49 pm
- Weather Station: None
- Operating System: None
- Location: Vienne, France
- Contact:
Re: Solar settings - observations
I wrote the Cumulus 1 code to do the Ryan-Stolzenbach calculation, so I was able to translate that myself for MX. I didn't write the vastly more complicated code to determine the sun position at any given time and place, I used a third party library, so I didn't translate that, I just used a different library. It's likely that any difference is down to using a different library for the sun position. It's also possible that I made an error in translating my code somewhere.
Steve
-
BCJKiwi
- Posts: 1259
- Joined: Mon 09 Jul 2012 8:40 pm
- Weather Station: Davis VP2 Cabled
- Operating System: Windows 10 Pro
- Location: Auckland, New Zealand
- Contact:
Re: Solar settings - observations
Yes, all settings the same.
It is not a problem - just a slight adjustment required.
If you look here http://silveracorn.co.nz/cumulusmx/trends.php you can see the effect of a 0.9 setting.
The area with sunshine is C1 with trans at 0.87
The step up is with MX trans at 0.90 (gets reset to 0.9) and the step down is after changing MX trans to 0.89.
If MX is set to 0.87 it has a step down from the C1 line of similar magnitude to the step up to 0.9.
It is not a problem - just a slight adjustment required.
If you look here http://silveracorn.co.nz/cumulusmx/trends.php you can see the effect of a 0.9 setting.
The area with sunshine is C1 with trans at 0.87
The step up is with MX trans at 0.90 (gets reset to 0.9) and the step down is after changing MX trans to 0.89.
If MX is set to 0.87 it has a step down from the C1 line of similar magnitude to the step up to 0.9.
- steve
- Cumulus Author
- Posts: 26672
- Joined: Mon 02 Jun 2008 6:49 pm
- Weather Station: None
- Operating System: None
- Location: Vienne, France
- Contact:
Re: Solar settings - observations
Here, the MX theoretical max is currently slightly higher than the Cumulus 1 figure. When I get time, I'll have a look to see if I can determine whether it's down to the library difference or a bug in my code.
The Cumulus 1 figure is very close to the result from the spreadsheet that I took the R-S formula from originally, so it's apparently MX which is aberrant.
The Cumulus 1 figure is very close to the result from the spreadsheet that I took the R-S formula from originally, so it's apparently MX which is aberrant.
Steve
- steve
- Cumulus Author
- Posts: 26672
- Joined: Mon 02 Jun 2008 6:49 pm
- Weather Station: None
- Operating System: None
- Location: Vienne, France
- Contact:
Re: Solar settings - observations
The code I'm using in MX to determine solar elevation gives a slightly higher figure (at my location now) than the code in Cumulus 1. The code I'm using in MX is from this blog post:
http://guideving.blogspot.co.uk/2010/08 ... -in-c.html
The author says it gives results close to some reference sites, so perhaps I'm using it incorrectly, but it's hard to see how.
http://guideving.blogspot.co.uk/2010/08 ... -in-c.html
The author says it gives results close to some reference sites, so perhaps I'm using it incorrectly, but it's hard to see how.
Steve
- mcrossley
- Posts: 14388
- Joined: Thu 07 Jan 2010 9:44 pm
- Weather Station: Davis VP2/WLL
- Operating System: Bullseye Lite rPi
- Location: Wilmslow, Cheshire, UK
- Contact:
Re: Solar settings - observations
How does the Sun position that code produces compare with the spreadsheet? The Spreadsheet has a pretty comprehensive calculation.
- steve
- Cumulus Author
- Posts: 26672
- Joined: Mon 02 Jun 2008 6:49 pm
- Weather Station: None
- Operating System: None
- Location: Vienne, France
- Contact:
Re: Solar settings - observations
Just now (1200 UTC):
That code (as implemented in MX): 20.01
Cumulus 1: 18.94
Spreadsheet: 18.99
That code (as implemented in MX): 20.01
Cumulus 1: 18.94
Spreadsheet: 18.99
Steve
- steve
- Cumulus Author
- Posts: 26672
- Joined: Mon 02 Jun 2008 6:49 pm
- Weather Station: None
- Operating System: None
- Location: Vienne, France
- Contact:
Re: Solar settings - observations
Hmm. It looks like I have introduced an error myself. Revised figures coming up...
Steve
- mcrossley
- Posts: 14388
- Joined: Thu 07 Jan 2010 9:44 pm
- Weather Station: Davis VP2/WLL
- Operating System: Bullseye Lite rPi
- Location: Wilmslow, Cheshire, UK
- Contact:
Re: Solar settings - observations
Actually, looking at that linked code, it has no correction for refraction, so it is going to be inaccurate towards the beginning or end of the day - or all day in Winter at northern latitudes.
- steve
- Cumulus Author
- Posts: 26672
- Joined: Mon 02 Jun 2008 6:49 pm
- Weather Station: None
- Operating System: None
- Location: Vienne, France
- Contact:
Re: Solar settings - observations
Corrected figures at 1300:
MX: 19.50
C1: 18.76
Spreadsheet: 18.81
With the correction, MX has the theoretical solar max at 1305 at 338, and C1 at 323. The spreadsheet has 326. All using my settings.
MX: 19.50
C1: 18.76
Spreadsheet: 18.81
With the correction, MX has the theoretical solar max at 1305 at 338, and C1 at 323. The spreadsheet has 326. All using my settings.
Steve
- mcrossley
- Posts: 14388
- Joined: Thu 07 Jan 2010 9:44 pm
- Weather Station: Davis VP2/WLL
- Operating System: Bullseye Lite rPi
- Location: Wilmslow, Cheshire, UK
- Contact:
Re: Solar settings - observations
The spreadsheet solar elevation agrees with the 'accurate' on-line calculators.
BTW, was that Sanday on the TV last night - Digging for Britain? - I had it on the in background in the hotel.
BTW, was that Sanday on the TV last night - Digging for Britain? - I had it on the in background in the hotel.
- steve
- Cumulus Author
- Posts: 26672
- Joined: Mon 02 Jun 2008 6:49 pm
- Weather Station: None
- Operating System: None
- Location: Vienne, France
- Contact:
Re: Solar settings - observations
I just need a more accurate version already in C# or that I can easily convert to C#. Or I suppose that given the algorithm, I could write the code from scratch...mcrossley wrote:The spreadsheet solar elevation agrees with the 'accurate' on-line calculators.
According to The Orcadian, it was the Ness of Brodgar on the (Orkney) mainland.BTW, was that Sanday on the TV last night - Digging for Britain? - I had it on the in background in the hotel.
Steve
- mcrossley
- Posts: 14388
- Joined: Thu 07 Jan 2010 9:44 pm
- Weather Station: Davis VP2/WLL
- Operating System: Bullseye Lite rPi
- Location: Wilmslow, Cheshire, UK
- Contact:
Re: Solar settings - observations
I have a cpp library if that is any use?
Re Digging for Britain, I just heard the name Sanday mentioned, I wasn't really watching it but is amazing how your brain picks out key words in the background 'noise'.
Re Digging for Britain, I just heard the name Sanday mentioned, I wasn't really watching it but is amazing how your brain picks out key words in the background 'noise'.
- steve
- Cumulus Author
- Posts: 26672
- Joined: Mon 02 Jun 2008 6:49 pm
- Weather Station: None
- Operating System: None
- Location: Vienne, France
- Contact:
Re: Solar settings - observations
Possibly; I suspect there's a lot of code involved though, because of the way these things are built.mcrossley wrote:I have a cpp library if that is any use?
Yes, it seems Sanday was also featured.Re Digging for Britain, I just heard the name Sanday mentioned,
Steve