Rule machine vs Simple Lighting

I have a SL app that turns on lights at sunset and off at sunrise. One or two times per month it does not execute. I then try to get into the hub but can't. The only way is to reboot hub then manually go to each of the the lights and turn on then all is ok. Would Rule machine be better? I looked into creating a RM but I don't see a trigger for sunrise/sunset. How would I go about this?

Rule Machine does have sunrise and sunset triggers but I would honestly focus in your lockup’s. I have had SL rules in place for over two years that turn on lights -90 sunset and they work without a hitch. If your hub is locking up you have other issues to focus on and moving to RM won’t solve this issue. If you havent already I would suggest looking for errors in your past logs and reaching out to support so @bobbyD can help you.

4 Likes

Is that predictable in any way?? Because if you knew it was due in 2 days, for example, you could Disable a handful of Apps (or sub-Apps like individual Rules for RM or SL) and see if doing so extends the time before lock. that could help you understand which 'corner or side' of the Hub the problem is lurking.

These steps to disable a big chunk of the utility of the hub for a few days is not pleasant. But locking up can't be pleasant either. :slight_smile:

No, this is some other problem in your system, and has nothing to do with Simple Lighting (now called Simple Automations in the latest release). We need to find out why your hub is going south on you. If you can't get into the webui, that would be consistent with an automation not running contemporaneously. Turn on Logs, and see if anything pops up there, especially leading up to one of these incidents. Look for red errors in the log. If you see any, post them here.

1 Like

Since you are now calling it Simple Automations instead of Simple Lighting, is it your plan to replicate some functionality that is now in RM to SA to increase the functionality of Simple Automations?

Slowly, yes, as those needs surface, and fit within the overall simplicity and flow of Simple Automation.

2 Likes

I’d love to see RM evolve some day into a hybrid between the UI of RM 3 and the capability of RM 4. This is what, to a greater degree Stringify had once accomplished. The UI I would surmise is the greatest attraction to Simple Automation.

Although RM 4 is arguably more powerful than Stringify ever was.

"With great power comes great responsibility."

4 Likes

“Design is intelligence made visible” :wink:

"With great power comes great... confusion"
:smiley:

1 Like

OK. @bravenel:
With my own timing runs, I see what a difference it makes to have rules in Simple Automation, instead of Rule Machine.
I even started to convert my rules from RM to SA.
I see what a difference it makes in terms of device execution.
I suspect it may also make a difference to "overall slowdown" if I convert those rules which are frequently used, and frequently called.
However, may I request your consideration for upgrading SA slightly, to make it more flexible. It's in the "Restrictions" area that I believe SA should be upgraded. One key approach is to allow two switches (not just one) to restrict the execution. Another key restriction is by presence.
Yes, I know that I can combine many switches into one, and use that one in SA. This is just one of those "convenience" requests, not necessarily a "must have" request. I know that you want to keep SA as simple as possible.
(With apologies to @cobra, I got the idea from him and his apps. Full disclosure)

1 Like

Restriction as to presence is easy enough. Will think about the other one, but it's definitely not "simple" to have two identical restrictions offered.

This is what I mean about 2 switches in the restriction area:


Again with my apologies to @cobra.
"Imitation is the highest form of flattery"
Thank you for your consideration.

This topic was automatically closed 365 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.