It's possible for
example to export a whole month's worth of data from WL to a standard
text file and from there it would be possible to use Excel or, as a
realistic option depending on your programming skills, write your own
program to process the text file data.

I copy everything now to Excel, on a daily basis, and find that I can
retrieve much more from it.
I have only very basic computer knowledge, so if I can, anyone can.
--
David Mitchell, 70m amsl, Langtoft, East Riding of Yorkshire.

It's possible for
example to export a whole month's worth of data from WL to a standard
text file and from there it would be possible to use Excel or, as a
realistic option depending on your programming skills, write your own
program to process the text file data.

I copy everything now to Excel, on a daily basis, and find that I can
retrieve much more from it.
I have only very basic computer knowledge, so if I can, anyone can.
--
David Mitchell, 70m amsl, Langtoft, East Riding of Yorkshire.

It's possible for
example to export a whole month's worth of data from WL to a standard
text file and from there it would be possible to use Excel or, as a
realistic option depending on your programming skills, write your own
program to process the text file data.

I copy everything now to Excel, on a daily basis, and find that I can
retrieve much more from it.
I have only very basic computer knowledge, so if I can, anyone can.
--
David Mitchell, 70m amsl, Langtoft, East Riding of Yorkshire.

In message , John Dann
writes
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 18:01:52 -0000, "Stuart Turrell"
wrote:

The thing is, i liked the reports you could print out in weather display,
but neither of the above pieces of software seem capable of producing many
reports, if any.

Report wise, (days stats, week stats, month, year etc..) what would be best.


Well Weatherlink does do some basic 'NOAA' reports but admittedly this
isn't a well-developed feature.

There's all sorts of ways you could analyse what might be the most
suitable software for your needs, but one of looking at it is to
divide requirements up into categories, eg:

1. Display of current and archive data locally;

2. Display of current and recent data (eg trend graphs) on a web site;

3. Creation of monthly reports (maybe mostly as text) by day, yearly
reports by month etc;

From what you've said, WL might be able to perform acceptably on [1]
and [2] - it won't be the best or most fully-featured in all aspects
of either of these categories but you might well judge its benefits to
at least counterbalance the deficiencies.

Weatherlink happily does monthly & annual NOAA reports. Through the
Internet settings pages you can choose which reports to generate on each
upload profile. On my website the current month & last month reports are
done everyday. At the start of each month I just edit the file name of
the last month report and index it permanently from the archive page.



But for the reports, WL might miss the mark. However, (eg monthly)
reporting is an operation that can be done 'offline', ie it doesn't
need to be tied in to the constant live collection of new data and so
can, in principle, be done by another program. It's possible for
example to export a whole month's worth of data from WL to a standard
text file and from there it would be possible to use Excel or, as a
realistic option depending on your programming skills, write your own
program to process the text file data. This could be an interesting
and not too demanding programming project which could give you exactly
the output you'd like to see.

Alternatively, as you suggest, you could move the archived data into a
formal database structure. I use a utility that moves all the WL data
directly and automatically from the WL archive files into an Access
database, from where you can obviously use all the standard retrieval
and reporting tools.

JGD
www.weatherstations.co.uk

The feature WL needs is much more flexibility in graph image generation,
the ability to put several parameters on a single graph for upload. The
ability to select the content of text reports would be nice too.

--
steve

www.sbriggs.plus.com/weather

In message , John Dann
writes
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 18:01:52 -0000, "Stuart Turrell"
wrote:

The thing is, i liked the reports you could print out in weather display,
but neither of the above pieces of software seem capable of producing many
reports, if any.

Report wise, (days stats, week stats, month, year etc..) what would be best.


Well Weatherlink does do some basic 'NOAA' reports but admittedly this
isn't a well-developed feature.

There's all sorts of ways you could analyse what might be the most
suitable software for your needs, but one of looking at it is to
divide requirements up into categories, eg:

1. Display of current and archive data locally;

2. Display of current and recent data (eg trend graphs) on a web site;

3. Creation of monthly reports (maybe mostly as text) by day, yearly
reports by month etc;

From what you've said, WL might be able to perform acceptably on [1]
and [2] - it won't be the best or most fully-featured in all aspects
of either of these categories but you might well judge its benefits to
at least counterbalance the deficiencies.

Weatherlink happily does monthly & annual NOAA reports. Through the
Internet settings pages you can choose which reports to generate on each
upload profile. On my website the current month & last month reports are
done everyday. At the start of each month I just edit the file name of
the last month report and index it permanently from the archive page.



But for the reports, WL might miss the mark. However, (eg monthly)
reporting is an operation that can be done 'offline', ie it doesn't
need to be tied in to the constant live collection of new data and so
can, in principle, be done by another program. It's possible for
example to export a whole month's worth of data from WL to a standard
text file and from there it would be possible to use Excel or, as a
realistic option depending on your programming skills, write your own
program to process the text file data. This could be an interesting
and not too demanding programming project which could give you exactly
the output you'd like to see.

Alternatively, as you suggest, you could move the archived data into a
formal database structure. I use a utility that moves all the WL data
directly and automatically from the WL archive files into an Access
database, from where you can obviously use all the standard retrieval
and reporting tools.

JGD
www.weatherstations.co.uk

The feature WL needs is much more flexibility in graph image generation,
the ability to put several parameters on a single graph for upload. The
ability to select the content of text reports would be nice too.

--
steve

www.sbriggs.plus.com/weather

In message , John Dann
writes
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 18:01:52 -0000, "Stuart Turrell"
wrote:

The thing is, i liked the reports you could print out in weather display,
but neither of the above pieces of software seem capable of producing many
reports, if any.

Report wise, (days stats, week stats, month, year etc..) what would be best.


Well Weatherlink does do some basic 'NOAA' reports but admittedly this
isn't a well-developed feature.

There's all sorts of ways you could analyse what might be the most
suitable software for your needs, but one of looking at it is to
divide requirements up into categories, eg:

1. Display of current and archive data locally;

2. Display of current and recent data (eg trend graphs) on a web site;

3. Creation of monthly reports (maybe mostly as text) by day, yearly
reports by month etc;

From what you've said, WL might be able to perform acceptably on [1]
and [2] - it won't be the best or most fully-featured in all aspects
of either of these categories but you might well judge its benefits to
at least counterbalance the deficiencies.

Weatherlink happily does monthly & annual NOAA reports. Through the
Internet settings pages you can choose which reports to generate on each
upload profile. On my website the current month & last month reports are
done everyday. At the start of each month I just edit the file name of
the last month report and index it permanently from the archive page.



But for the reports, WL might miss the mark. However, (eg monthly)
reporting is an operation that can be done 'offline', ie it doesn't
need to be tied in to the constant live collection of new data and so
can, in principle, be done by another program. It's possible for
example to export a whole month's worth of data from WL to a standard
text file and from there it would be possible to use Excel or, as a
realistic option depending on your programming skills, write your own
program to process the text file data. This could be an interesting
and not too demanding programming project which could give you exactly
the output you'd like to see.

Alternatively, as you suggest, you could move the archived data into a
formal database structure. I use a utility that moves all the WL data
directly and automatically from the WL archive files into an Access
database, from where you can obviously use all the standard retrieval
and reporting tools.

JGD
www.weatherstations.co.uk

The feature WL needs is much more flexibility in graph image generation,
the ability to put several parameters on a single graph for upload. The
ability to select the content of text reports would be nice too.

--
steve

www.sbriggs.plus.com/weather

In message , John Dann
writes
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 18:01:52 -0000, "Stuart Turrell"
wrote:

The thing is, i liked the reports you could print out in weather display,
but neither of the above pieces of software seem capable of producing many
reports, if any.

Report wise, (days stats, week stats, month, year etc..) what would be best.


Well Weatherlink does do some basic 'NOAA' reports but admittedly this
isn't a well-developed feature.

There's all sorts of ways you could analyse what might be the most
suitable software for your needs, but one of looking at it is to
divide requirements up into categories, eg:

1. Display of current and archive data locally;

2. Display of current and recent data (eg trend graphs) on a web site;

3. Creation of monthly reports (maybe mostly as text) by day, yearly
reports by month etc;

From what you've said, WL might be able to perform acceptably on [1]
and [2] - it won't be the best or most fully-featured in all aspects
of either of these categories but you might well judge its benefits to
at least counterbalance the deficiencies.

Weatherlink happily does monthly & annual NOAA reports. Through the
Internet settings pages you can choose which reports to generate on each
upload profile. On my website the current month & last month reports are
done everyday. At the start of each month I just edit the file name of
the last month report and index it permanently from the archive page.



But for the reports, WL might miss the mark. However, (eg monthly)
reporting is an operation that can be done 'offline', ie it doesn't
need to be tied in to the constant live collection of new data and so
can, in principle, be done by another program. It's possible for
example to export a whole month's worth of data from WL to a standard
text file and from there it would be possible to use Excel or, as a
realistic option depending on your programming skills, write your own
program to process the text file data. This could be an interesting
and not too demanding programming project which could give you exactly
the output you'd like to see.

Alternatively, as you suggest, you could move the archived data into a
formal database structure. I use a utility that moves all the WL data
directly and automatically from the WL archive files into an Access
database, from where you can obviously use all the standard retrieval
and reporting tools.

JGD
www.weatherstations.co.uk

The feature WL needs is much more flexibility in graph image generation,
the ability to put several parameters on a single graph for upload. The
ability to select the content of text reports would be nice too.

--
steve

www.sbriggs.plus.com/weather

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 22:56:23 +0000, Steven Briggs
wrote:

Weatherlink happily does monthly & annual NOAA reports.

Yes, indeed - as I mentioned above. The problem is that most users
interested in reports (which admittedly tends to be a minority of WL
users overall) find the WL NOAA reports very limited and requests for
more parameters and more detail are common.

The feature WL needs is much more flexibility in graph image generation,
the ability to put several parameters on a single graph for upload. The
ability to select the content of text reports would be nice too.

There's absolutely no doubt that no ideal Davis-compatible package
exists, whether you're looking at WL or any one of the other
contenders. I guess every current WL user has their own wishlist of
features they would like to see enhanced and yes multiple datasets on
a single plot would score quite highly I'm sure. (Though offering
genuine flexibility in plotting arbitrary multiple parameters from
different classes, eg temp, wind speed and rainfall on a single plot,
becomes increasingly difficult to program cleanly and with
ease-of-use). But for serious weather watchers it tends to be the WL
reporting facility that is most often criticised IME.

JGD
www.weatherstations.co.uk

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 22:56:23 +0000, Steven Briggs
wrote:

Weatherlink happily does monthly & annual NOAA reports.

Yes, indeed - as I mentioned above. The problem is that most users
interested in reports (which admittedly tends to be a minority of WL
users overall) find the WL NOAA reports very limited and requests for
more parameters and more detail are common.

The feature WL needs is much more flexibility in graph image generation,
the ability to put several parameters on a single graph for upload. The
ability to select the content of text reports would be nice too.

There's absolutely no doubt that no ideal Davis-compatible package
exists, whether you're looking at WL or any one of the other
contenders. I guess every current WL user has their own wishlist of
features they would like to see enhanced and yes multiple datasets on
a single plot would score quite highly I'm sure. (Though offering
genuine flexibility in plotting arbitrary multiple parameters from
different classes, eg temp, wind speed and rainfall on a single plot,
becomes increasingly difficult to program cleanly and with
ease-of-use). But for serious weather watchers it tends to be the WL
reporting facility that is most often criticised IME.

JGD
www.weatherstations.co.uk

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 22:56:23 +0000, Steven Briggs
wrote:

Weatherlink happily does monthly & annual NOAA reports.

Yes, indeed - as I mentioned above. The problem is that most users
interested in reports (which admittedly tends to be a minority of WL
users overall) find the WL NOAA reports very limited and requests for
more parameters and more detail are common.

The feature WL needs is much more flexibility in graph image generation,
the ability to put several parameters on a single graph for upload. The
ability to select the content of text reports would be nice too.

There's absolutely no doubt that no ideal Davis-compatible package
exists, whether you're looking at WL or any one of the other
contenders. I guess every current WL user has their own wishlist of
features they would like to see enhanced and yes multiple datasets on
a single plot would score quite highly I'm sure. (Though offering
genuine flexibility in plotting arbitrary multiple parameters from
different classes, eg temp, wind speed and rainfall on a single plot,
becomes increasingly difficult to program cleanly and with
ease-of-use). But for serious weather watchers it tends to be the WL
reporting facility that is most often criticised IME.

JGD
www.weatherstations.co.uk