Author Topic: Meteobridge - A new appliance feeding Weather Underground and more... (Read 27304 times)

docbee · « **on:** February 03, 2013, 05:06:09 PM »

If you are looking for a solution to feed your station's data to weather underground, but don't want to have your PC runnning 24/7 there is a new developed appliance that might fit your needs.

It is compatible with most of the stations out there (Davis, Rainwise, Peetbros, Oregon, Hideki, Honywell, ...) runs on minimal-sized, low-powered and cheap hardware and can be setup as DIY or ready-to-go from ambientweather.

The applicance is named "Meteobridge" and is from the makers of Meteohub and Meteoplug. You can find information about it here: http://www.meteobridge.com

Ambient does have it named "Weatherbridge" also in their shop: http://www.ambientweather.com/amweatherbridge.html

Beaudog · « **Reply #1 on:** February 03, 2013, 06:04:59 PM »

Well... From all I can tell it uploads ONLY to WU. Kinda limited in scope. Not for me.

docbee · « **Reply #2 on:** February 03, 2013, 07:01:24 PM »

What would you like as additional services?

Beaudog · « **Reply #3 on:** February 03, 2013, 07:07:55 PM »

As a minimum CWOP and if you want the UK guys WOW, PWS would be nice but necessary. If you want Europe buyers AWEKAS.

Bushman · « **Reply #4 on:** February 03, 2013, 07:19:35 PM »

useless to me unless you can \ftp to anywhere. And it is pretty much the price of a used netbook.

DanS · « **Reply #5 on:** February 03, 2013, 07:43:22 PM »

Being able to upload to PWS would also open the doors to Ham operators via HAMweather

docbee · « **Reply #6 on:** February 03, 2013, 08:03:14 PM »

Thanks for the feedback, just wait a week

@bushman: Why do you think FTP is needed that much? To send data in a customizable fomat via HTTP or as a MYSQL query looks to me like a much better way to punch data over the Internet to a dedicated server. What do you need FTP for? Are you thinking of a WD-Live feed? That would be beyond the intention of the appliance as this needs tons of data and the feeded flash applet is not going well with smartphones etc.

Bushman · « **Reply #7 on:** February 03, 2013, 10:03:06 PM »

An FTP push to the server of MY choosing is a much more open solution. Trying to connect to a remote DB is fraught with issues. And as I said, the price need to be better I can do more with a $25 Raspberry Pi.

saratogaWX · « **Reply #8 on:** February 03, 2013, 11:35:03 PM »

Docbee,

Having a generalized FTP upload (with weather tags processing for data) would allow the appliance to drive a personal weather website of the user's choosing. Few of the weather enthusiasts personal weather websites are driven using mySQL (due to it's complexity and lack of a generalized, pre-packaged solution). Something with the template processing capability like exists in Meteohub would be welcome.

docbee · « **Reply #9 on:** February 04, 2013, 06:26:59 AM »

@saratogaWX: good point. As the device cant store lots of data, it might receive the template to fill via wget from the webserver and delivers it back filled with weather data via ftp. that might indeed be an interesting option. Only thing that makes me a bit worrying is that the users (as I know from my Meteohub experience) do have tons of problems setting up their FTP-upload, especially giving the right path where to store it on the server. This and configuring email sending is my "Meteohub support issue #1", hard to believe but true

@bushman: yes, the RPI is an interesting platform in general. However, when you put all pieces together you need (housing, power supply, WLAN-adapter) you will be significantly above $29 (btw, the RPI model B price as naked PCB is $35 to my knowledge) and pure hw costs will be above the Meteobridge solution and the RPI is more clumsy in size and needs more power. I find the OpenWrt routers selected much more appealing for this specific purpose and you get them from any computer store. Going the "flash-yourself approach" you will have a fully licensed Meteobridge for $100. Compared to what the proprietary and brand-closed upload solutions from Davis at al do cost, that still looks quite cost effective to me. If it is worth the money for you, as an expert that sets up computer systems (used netbook, rpi) like 1-2-3 and can handle installation and configuration of appropriate weather programs in no time is ofcourse another question... but think of less experienced users who just want to do a few clicks and have it running by that.

Bushman · « **Reply #10 on:** February 04, 2013, 09:12:43 AM »

If FTP path and email config are the top issues, maybe those users should buy a WL IP?

Ken was spot on re: FTP.

I'm going to spend a bit more time on the open router thing, but for now a netbook with SSD is pretty much the cat's meow for a remote application. IMHO of course.

Sigdigit · « **Reply #11 on:** February 04, 2013, 09:33:47 AM »

I considered things like meteohub, hautespot, WLIP before I finally settled on a relatively cheap Acer Aspire one netbook, which has been running 24/7 for years now without any problems and draws very little power with the screen closed. Plus I have the ability to type, access the internet, etc, all from the same portal. When I am not using it, the screen is closed and it sits behind by VantagePro console. If it weren't for the serial to usb adaptor sticking out of it, you wouldn't even know it's there. BTW, I am not a IT nut, so was looking for something relatively simple. I only use Weatherlink, which pushes all my data to WU, CWOP/MADIS, and Weatherbug (ugh, don't even know why I bother with that one).

Beaudog · « **Reply #12 on:** February 04, 2013, 10:44:29 AM »

I was in a hurry yesterday a better explanation of my thoughts.

I think this is a nice device and that it will sell as is.

I think if it had the capability to upload to at least one more site it would have a much larger market.

Most US users I think would want at least WU and CWOP.

I think most UK users would want WU and WOW or AWEKAS possibly both.

I think most European users would want WU and AWEKAS.

I understand that one of the objectives is to keep the price down and that limits processing power and memory capability.

One possibility might to have several software/firmware versions. Hopefully user uploadable so one could switch from one to the other if desired

docbee · « **Reply #13 on:** February 05, 2013, 02:45:04 PM »

Thanks again for sharing your insight!

@saratogaWX: The unit won't be able to feed a complete clientraw stream. Is there a light-weight option to get your famous website scripts feeded? As said, I could manage to provide a ftp-upload on templates provided in the Internet and I think I can adapt what kind of template variables Meteobridge provides to specifc needs of your templates. Would be cool to have a saratoga presentation of Meteobridge data, just by setting a switch in Meteobridge and giving some ftp credentials where to materialize this content.

saratogaWX · « **Reply #14 on:** February 05, 2013, 02:59:22 PM »

That would be great

The template really needs only two files with conditions data:
a clientraw.txt type file
a MHtags.php type file which contains the bulk of the weather data to display.
The graph files and maybe NOAA-style .txt climate reports would be nice too.

One of the difficulties I had with doing a Meteohub plugin for the template sets was the use of both sensor name and unit-of-measure in the tag name. Since various stations had varying sensors/units preferences, I had to use a set of utility scripts to craft the specific MHtags.php template (and the graph file names) to accommodate the selected sensor/units combinations.

If the weather tags for Meteobridge would be just static names (like WeatherLink or Cumulus provide) and the units-of-measure are available as separate tags, and the graph files had just fixed names, I could easily whip-up a specific Plugin for the template set to support the Meteobridge output (and call it an MB-Plugin

) The clientraw.txt output is optional IMHO, and unless it can be uploaded at 10-15 second intervals, is likely not useful for a 'realtime' display. It's why I made the WeatherLink Plugin have an optional AJAX entry as WeatherLink only supports 1-minute uploads at a minimum. Alternatively, since you have HTTP access on Meteobridge, we could craft a small script to run on the website and receive an update and store it (as VWS WeatherFlash server uploads do) .. that could provide a more-realtime aspect.

Let me know how I can help... email is webmaster at saratoga-weather dot org

Best regards,
Ken

Weather Display · « **Reply #15 on:** February 05, 2013, 03:02:58 PM »

the dig at WDL and tablets/iphones no flash does not apply anymore, as WD supports the new Steel gauges HTML5/Javascript real time display which works on iphones etc

docbee · « **Reply #16 on:** February 05, 2013, 05:36:19 PM »

@Brian: sorry, I didn't know that. good move. Is WDL your baby now or is Julian still the author?

docbee · « **Reply #17 on:** February 10, 2013, 09:26:07 AM »

I added FTP Upload as discussed earlier in the thread:
http://meteobridge.com/wiki/index.php/Push_Services#Individual_FTP_Uploads

@sratogaWX: Will upload of 4 files be suffcient for your templates? Does Meteobridge provide the data your template needs? Variables available are lined out here: http://meteobridge.com/wiki/index.php/Templates
I remember some issues around "yesterday" data when doing the templates for Meteohub. I can invent variables for a "yesterday" time frame, if that is important for your scripts.

Bushman · « **Reply #18 on:** February 13, 2013, 12:36:14 PM »

Quote from: docbee on February 10, 2013, 09:26:07 AM

I added FTP Upload as discussed earlier in the thread:
http://meteobridge.com/wiki/index.php/Push_Services#Individual_FTP_Uploads

Neat! definitely adds value.

saratogaWX · « **Reply #19 on:** February 13, 2013, 01:11:30 PM »

Quote from: docbee on February 10, 2013, 09:26:07 AM

I added FTP Upload as discussed earlier in the thread:
http://meteobridge.com/wiki/index.php/Push_Services#Individual_FTP_Uploads

@saratogaWX: Will upload of 4 files be suffcient for your templates? Does Meteobridge provide the data your template needs? Variables available are lined out here: http://meteobridge.com/wiki/index.php/Templates
I remember some issues around "yesterday" data when doing the templates for Meteohub. I can invent variables for a "yesterday" time frame, if that is important for your scripts.

Those variables are fine .. having a 'yesterday' set would be a big plus. If there is a way for the user to specify the preferred units, it would be great to have variables that contain those preferences (for Temperature, Wind, Barometer, Rain and Distance).

I gather that the sensor names all are for the '0' sensor for all station types .. is that correct?
So [thb0press-act] would always contain the current pressure (in hPa)?

The one file the template needs is the tags.php file (likely called MBtags.php) with the current data.
An optional WD-like clientraw.txt file like Meteohub issues would be nice, especially if it could be FTPed at a frequent interval (5 to 15 seconds).
If any graph images are produced by Meteobridge, it would be nice to automatically FTP them too at the same time the MBtags.php is uploaded.

I'd be pleased to carry on the conversation Boris via email to webmaster at saratoga-weather dot org

Best regards,
Ken

saratogaWX · « **Reply #20 on:** February 13, 2013, 04:22:54 PM »

Oh, and one question.. it appears that Meteobridge only works with a Serial or USB connection to the Davis datalogger .. are there any plans to offer it with a TCP/IP:port connection so someone (like me) could use VirtualVP TCP/IP to feed it? Since I only have 1 Davis VP1+ and two instances of VirtualVP to drive all the various weather software for my station and testing, I don't really have any other way of trying it unless it supports TCP/IP:port connection to the Davis.

Best regards,
Ken

docbee · « **Reply #21 on:** February 17, 2013, 06:42:34 AM »

As promised I am back with an update on supported weather networks. Beside Weather Underground you can now also select support for:

AWEKAS
WeatherBug Backyard
WeatherForYou (also known as PWSweather)
UK MetOffice WOW
Windfinder
Citizen Weather Observer Program (CWOP)
Open Weather Map

All weather networks can be supplied with data in parallel.

If you have a Davis WLIP interface, you can add IP and Port near the Vantage checkbox on Meteobridge web interface. This makes the logger not to use USB but TCP/IP to reach out for the station.

Latest bells and whistels are documented in the wiki: www.meteobridge.com

When you want to click around a bit to get an idea how this tiny device will look and feel, you can do it on the cloud simulator (originally designed to make network settings there and to transport these onto the device by means of a USB stick), which is very close to the real product: http://config.meteobridge.com

Beaudog · « **Reply #22 on:** February 21, 2013, 10:06:56 AM »

Wow I like that. If I were buying my Davis station today I would give serious consideration to buying it.

Bushman · « **Reply #23 on:** February 21, 2013, 11:49:09 AM »

For about 80 bucks all-in (router is 15-30 bucks), this looks to be a heck of neat project to try. My netbook needs a new battery which will cost about as much as the MB app so for 20 bucks more I could do away with the device completely. May have to put this on the summer project list!

Bushman · « **Reply #24 on:** February 21, 2013, 11:55:00 AM »

Docbee, according to the Wiki "Storage capacity of Davis logger is not used at all." Does that mean (a) you do not need a Davis WL logger adn (b) does that mean if the Meteobridge or your Internet goes down that data is lost forever??

News:

Author Topic: Meteobridge - A new appliance feeding Weather Underground and more... (Read 27304 times)