-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.3k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Add support for ThermoPro TP828B #3082
Comments
Hi @rbray89 The data layout is not exactly the same,, here more data / more information (temp, target, unknown ) than tp829b which provides only temp from the 4 probes. Can you share more samples to confirm, please. |
Here you are:
Note that the "BBQ" samples have a high and low set-point. |
@ProfBoc75 I think I may have gotten the format: Looks like it is just a series of Probe, target-low, target-high values, with an offset of 500 and a 10x scale applied. |
You shared the wrong bitbench with the 4 probes / TP829B, but I understand, and it's the same approach offset and scale as for the TP829B. TP828B (2 probes) : ID {16} , 6 x Temp values {12}, Checksum {8}, 0xd2d2d2d2d2, and trailed zeros ... Now I'm thinking how to update the current decoder to add this model, I will add some checks around checksum and 0xd2 value position to get the model and then decode properly the values. The ID ( 2 bytes) is also another possibility, but we need more feedback from other users to compare models and confirm that the model could be identify at ID level, for example, 0x08 = tp829b and 0x77 = tp828w ??? My guess, without other samples, we can't conclude. Edit: ID is 1 byte, I forgot to update the decoder data layout, the second byte is used for display unit (MSB nibble 0x2 for F, 0x0 for C) , LSB nibble is unknown and show as flags, could be 0xC for tp828b, and 0xF for tp829b ? |
Notice that the checksum is not exactly the same key and final XOR:
It's gen 0x98, key 0x55 and final XOR 0x00 for TP829B |
@ProfBoc75 Oops, sorry: correct Bitbench Neat, Thanks for the help! |
@rbray89 : FYI, I'm working to update the decoder. In the meantime, can you please record few samples with the Thx. |
@rbray89 : the PR is ready for test. From my side it works only with the codes you shared. I can't confirm that it will 100% work, I need your feedback for that, and/or if you can share some cu8 files as explained into my previous msg. Thx. |
Probe1: target: 300 probe: 16-17C Probe1: target: 74 probe: None Awesome! Thanks again! |
@rbray89 , thanks for the samples, only g001 & g003 contain thermopro information, and for g003 I cropped the beginning to get the figures, both gave me the same values: To share the good cu8 files, just replay them like this:
if you have an answer, like above, it can be shared, do it for each cu8 file. I'm busy, so I will update my decoder later as @zuckschwerdt shared some advices to improve / simplify it. |
Ah I still had the fsk decoder in there, so I don't think the samples had any useful data... |
Decoder is ready to merge. I reworked it to get 2 decoders but inside same file, easier to maintain. some results with your last samples: .../... |
@rbray89 merged into master rtl_433 , enjoy. |
This device is similar enough to the ThermoPro TP829B that I was able to key off of the support implemented for it, but different enough that the existing encoder isn't working.
I have the following output with the first probe inserted, and the second unused, ending at 86F:
Temps:
Probe 1: Target=170, Actual=70's - 86
Probe 2: Target=165, Actual=None
Let me know if you need anything else.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: