Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
All-In-One Mini Q-Control Unit
#13
(03-23-2017, 06:51 PM)NailBuster Wrote: HOWEVER,  there would be a lot of coding required and changes to many webpages to fully support all the extra probes.

True, it may initially.  Please do not read the following and take offense to it, I am just having a friendly discussion in hopes to better understand and possibly contribute to the project.  I do understand that many hours (months) and lots of dedication has been spent on this and other similar projects.

I haven't looked at any source code as yet so I am just guessing here, that the code is expecting a fixed number of inputs (probes).  And I do understand that it is easy to code for this especially with just four inputs to deal with.  But isn't that limiting?  Yes there may not be much demand for more probes, but maybe that is because the majority of the temp controllers on the market only offer up to four probes, so people are just accepting of that fact.

I would think that the number of probes could be a variable input, have the system sense the number of probes in use and adjust the outputs (graphs) accordingly.

I would say that in the user config settings, have a drop down option to tell the system which probe is being used for what; e.g. main pit temp, other pit temp, meat temp, other/etc. again providing flexibility (no hardcoding what probe 1,2,3,4 are to be used for).

In the software you don't have to change any of the calculations nor output controls as you would still use just the main pit temp and cook setpoint temp for controlling the damper/fan and use the meat temps for providing details on when the meat will reach it's setpoint and the other temps would just be informational either graphed or in a table or something.

I have found in my years in IT, that not hardcoding items allows the system to have more flexibility and less headaches down the road.  It may be abit more work upfront, but you'll have a much more robust system in the end.

Just my two cents  Angel

(03-23-2017, 06:51 PM)NailBuster Wrote: but, if you were just going to use MQTT and post the probe values to a server, then the work would be a lot less.  (not using the local webpages/server for all those features)

OK, so one more comment, and believe me when I say this, I am not standing on a soap box.  I'm just providing my thoughts in hopes for good discussion.

So I do have a bit of history with web security and securing systems for the big boys, which is why I am not a fan of cloud services.  Yes I know they are the cool new thing, but just look at the recent DOS on DNS, they made use of IOT devices.  Yes, in certain situations it does make sense to use cloud, and yes we are not holding nuclear codes in our smokers.  Once I have, umm Confused  I mean a hacker has access to an IOT, then they are on your network and can then do all kinds of nefarious things.  There are those of us security geeks who are uber paranoid (because we can) and have isolated most of our network devices from each other (which then becomes a pain in the arse to communicate across the LAN). Uhg

I am not recommending military security here (load know they are full of holes lol), but suggesting to only provide MQTT as an option for those who want to make use of it. I personally would rather connect to a local host, the temp controller, to get the web services.  So I am not sure if the Arduino platform can provide a robust web server or not (I'm about to go do some more reading on this) which may be why HM uses RPi.

Please understand that I truly love your design for a temp controller, breadboarding together already built components makes building a DIY controller much more accessible to those who are timid about soldering electronics (like me).
Reply


Messages In This Thread
All-In-One Mini Q-Control Unit - by NailBuster - 12-14-2016, 05:28 PM
RE: All-In-One Mini Q-Control Unit - by wbegg - 12-17-2016, 11:23 AM
RE: All-In-One Mini Q-Control Unit - by JohnW - 03-22-2017, 07:22 PM
RE: All-In-One Mini Q-Control Unit - by JeremyM - 02-16-2017, 04:54 AM
RE: All-In-One Mini Q-Control Unit - by JeremyM - 02-16-2017, 09:04 PM
RE: All-In-One Mini Q-Control Unit - by JohnW - 03-22-2017, 11:29 PM
RE: All-In-One Mini Q-Control Unit - by JohnW - 03-23-2017, 11:52 PM
RE: All-In-One Mini Q-Control Unit - by JohnW - 03-23-2017, 10:39 PM
RE: All-In-One Mini Q-Control Unit - by JohnW - 03-24-2017, 02:54 AM
RE: All-In-One Mini Q-Control Unit - by JohnW - 03-25-2017, 02:43 AM
RE: All-In-One Mini Q-Control Unit - by JohnW - 03-25-2017, 01:20 PM
RE: All-In-One Mini Q-Control Unit - by JohnW - 03-27-2017, 05:30 PM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)