Skip to content
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

Always show battery SOC percentage in center of brief page #1491

Open
mpvader opened this issue Sep 19, 2024 · 6 comments
Open

Always show battery SOC percentage in center of brief page #1491

mpvader opened this issue Sep 19, 2024 · 6 comments
Assignees
Labels
Milestone

Comments

@mpvader
Copy link
Contributor

mpvader commented Sep 19, 2024

As its now, its only shown if the brief page only has one item. And hidden when there are two or more circle gauges. Further input here:

https://community.victronenergy.com/t/gui-v2-on-v3-50-7-can-we-have-soc-in-the-circle-on-the-brief-page/124

Next step: @jepefe will discuss this with Serj

@chriadam
Copy link
Contributor

chriadam commented Dec 13, 2024

I have created a prototype (see the above PR). It supports showing a center-value in 1 or 2 or 3 gauge case, but NOT in 4 gauge case (there's not enough space in the middle). The 1-gauge case is unchanged from the current implementation (except that you can now choose to show a temperature value there instead of the battery state of charge value, as is currently supported). There are settings to control: 1) which (battery or temperature sensor) device whose value should be shown in the center of the brief page, 2) whether to show the label above the value or not, 3) when the center value should be shown (e.g. only 1 gauge case, vs 1 or 2, vs 1 or 2 or 3 gauge case). Please see the attached screenshots for the various 2 and 3 gauge cases, both with and without labels. Serj do you have any thoughts on this prototype? Are there any specific changes you would make, or ways this could be improved? Matthijs asked me to speak to you to get some proper design input so that we can iterate the prototype into a proper solution.

2-gauge-battery-soc-with-label 2-gauge-battery-soc-without-label 2-gauge-temperature-with-label 2-gauge-temperature-without-label 3-gauge-battery-soc-with-label 3-gauge-battery-soc-without-label 3-gauge-temperature-with-label 3-gauge-temperature-without-label

@chriadam
Copy link
Contributor

Screenshots above are the 5 inch screen resolution; the 7 inch screen resolution is more spacious.
I tested with 100% and 100 C values, also, and they do fit (although only just) in the space, without any overlaps, in the 3 gauge case.

@mpvader
Copy link
Contributor Author

mpvader commented Jan 20, 2025

@chriadam was being able to show two battery banks on the levels also part of this issue / prototype? I remember discussing that, but am not sure where that ended up.

Also, while searching I saw a few more issues, ie #541 , and now #1857.

For me, it would be nice to do all of them in one go while at it.

@chriadam
Copy link
Contributor

I'm not sure about the "two different batteries" gauges thing - I'd have to talk to Bea to find out whether the information we use (system battery info) aggregates data already, or whether it's just a single battery.

I agree that 541 and 1857 can be implemented as part of the task, yes.

@mpvader
Copy link
Contributor Author

mpvader commented Jan 30, 2025

@chriadam / @blammit how about the two different battery gauges thing?

Aggregrating battery data is not how I’d like it to work.

@blammit
Copy link
Contributor

blammit commented Jan 30, 2025

There is the system battery information under system/Dc/, and then there are the battery services.

Normally we just show the system battery information. If we want to show multiple batteries in the multi-gauge case, then what SOC and voltage/current/power would be shown in the centre? Would those still be the numbers from the system battery data, rather than individual battery services?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants