View Single Post
  #10  
Old 04-09-2013, 08:19 PM
SoCalLandscapeMgmt SoCalLandscapeMgmt is online now
LawnSite Bronze Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: So. Cal.
Posts: 1,446
Quote:
Originally Posted by argh View Post
Subscriptions of any sort are definitely out. Do you have any thoughts on the following report by Texas AgriLife Extension Service? Between Solar Sync and the ESP-SMT's tipping rain bucket, it seems like Solar Sync does a lot more automation while the ESP-SMT requires you to set up many of the zone specific details first (e.g. location, soil type, landscape slope, plant type/density, sun exposure, sprinkler type and root-depth requirements). So, potentially, the ESP-SMT would be more accurate provided you know all the specific zone requirements and Solar Sync might be off if you have varying zones since it only has data from the area it is placed in. Does that sound right?
The ESP-SMT will be far more accurate than the Solar Sync. The SMT as you stated does require detailed setup for each zone (which any smart controller will). It's fairly easy to do and you only have to do it once when you first install the controller however you can go back and make adjustments at any time. My issue with the Solar Sync is that all that it does is simply adjust the water budget of the controller up and down. Nothing more, nothing less. You program the host controller for peak watering requirements and then the Solar Sync is supposed to adjust the budget up or down depending on the weather. This only works accurately if you have first correctly calculated the peak run times for your site. With the ESP-SMT the controller will calculate the run times automatically based on the data that you supply when you set the controller up. I've installed a couple of Solar Sync and about 100 or so ESP-SMT. I prefer the ESP-SMT.
Reply With Quote
 
Page generated in 0.03555 seconds with 7 queries