topic Re: Rules causing strange behaviour - Rules conflict? in Arlo

Rules causing strange behaviour - Rules conflict?

benj79 — Wed, 28 Sep 2016 22:39:06 GMT

I am experiencing strange behaviour with rules.

I have five Arlo cameras. One of those is called 'Entrance Hall' and one is called 'Front of House'.

'Front of House' points over my front garden, driveway and entrance to the front of the property. A high sensitivity setting records all movements in my front garden and driveway. A very low setting only records people walking right up to the house and the front door (ie walking close to the camera).

'Entrance Hall' covers the internal entrance hall pointing at the front door.

I have a number of rules set up as a custom mode. Two of those rules seem to be conflicting with each other when they should be working independently of each other.

Rule #1 = Record video on Front of House if Front of House detects motion (motion set to 90). This should record all movements in the front garden and driveway.

Rule #2 = Record video on Entrance Hall if Front of House detects motion (motion set to 10). This should only record when there someone walks up to the front door (so I can see the door from the inside as someone approaches)

I should be getting a large number of videos of the front of the house and a smaller number of videos inside the house when the Front of House movement is large enough to switch on the internal camera.

That doesn't happen.

What does happen seems strange.

When both rules are switched on, both the Front of House and Entrance Hall camera only turn on but ONLY when large movements occur. Front of House does not record the smaller movements.

When rule #2 is deleted, Front of House records all movements, both large and small (as intended).

It is as if when two rules both depend on the movement from just one camera, the lowest sensitivity setting selected is used.

I have tried experimenting in a number of different ways but just don't seem able to get the camera to work in the way I want.

The best option is to set both Rule #1 and Rule #2 to 90. That records all the Front of House videos I want, but it means I get lots of 'Entrace Hall' videos I don't want (because Entrance Hall is triggered with only minor movement at the Front of the House. (I don't need 60 seconds of my entrance hall when someone walks onto my lawn temporarily for example).

I have tried lots of different ways of dealing with this, and my current thought is that this is a software issue - some sort of rules conflict. I have ruled out stupidity on my part (always a possiblity) but the rules are set up correctly.

If the rules were working correctly I should be getting lots of Rule #1 videos and far fewer Rule #2 videos, but I always seem to get the identical number of both.

Any help or insights appreciated.

Many thanks.

Re: Rules causing strange behaviour - Rules conflict?

Schorschi — Sun, 13 Mar 2016 05:56:24 GMT

I'm not sure I comprehend your set up in its entirety.

However, you seem to have a one-to-many rule set set up that has two rules in effect triggered by a motion event of the same camera, i.e.:

If motion is detected on camera "Front of House" at 90% sensitivity, record on camera "Front of House".
If motion is detected on camera "Front of House" at 10% sensitivity, record on camera "Entrance Hall".

Honestly, I'm not sure how a system programmed like that would react. I also have two one-to-many rule pairs set up, but they are at equal trigger sensitivity.

What I've noticed with these is that if I set up recordings at varying lengths (triggered by a motion event of the same camera), the camera with the shorter recording length appears to be blocked until the camera with the longer recording length has completed recording.

In other words, if I define two rules as follows:

If motion detected on Camera A, record on Camera A for 30 seconds.
If motion detected on Camera A, record on Camera B for 60 seconds.

When a motion event occurs in front of Camera A, both cameras record as programmed, however, once Camera A is done recording (after 30 seconds), it appears to be blocked from sensing (and acting upon) any other motion events until camera B has completed recording (after 60 seconds).

I suspect that there is a similar block going on in your scenario of varying trigger sensitivities. It looks as if your rule #2 hogs the trigger sensing just like in my example Camera B does (though for a different reason).

I believe a definite answer can only be provided by the developers who can explain the behavior you observed on your cameras.

Nevertheless it seems very well that this could be improved upon.

Re: Rules causing strange behaviour - Rules conflict?

benj79 — Sun, 13 Mar 2016 09:07:08 GMT

'you seem to have a one-to-many rule set set up that has two rules in effect triggered by a motion event of the same camera'

Yes, exactly. Nice way of putting it.

It looks as if Arlo doesn't deal with these events very well.

From your experience, it seems as if the software does not deal with such scenarios very well. In my case there is a conflict in sensor settings. In your case, there is an issues with timing.

It is currently causing me a bit of a headache. I have currently have two (bad) choices to decide between. Either I get a lot of videos I don't need of my front hall (a few 100 MBs of daily data I don't need) or I miss out on videos of my driveway I do want.

Either way suggests a limitation with the software.

It would be really useful if a developer could have a look at this issue.

Mod comment pls?

Re: Rules causing strange behaviour - Rules conflict?

jguerdat — Sun, 13 Mar 2016 13:10:17 GMT

Create a trouble ticket with all of this info in it. That forces a response although doesn't guarantee a fix.

Re: Rules causing strange behaviour - Rules conflict?

Schorschi — Sun, 13 Mar 2016 16:46:30 GMT

benj79 wrote:
It is currently causing me a bit of a headache. I have currently have two (bad) choices to decide between. Either I get a lot of videos I don't need of my front hall (a few 100 MBs of daily data I don't need) or I miss out on videos of my driveway I do want.

You get a few hundred MB of data on a single camera per day? That's, what, at least 20-30 minutes of footage, assuming the medium camera recording quality setting?

If so, that seems a little excessive to me and makes me wonder what kind of events you're trying to capture.

For instance, I have my cameras set up such that they are pointed at doors and windows (points of ingress) around the house only, in an inwards-fashion, i.e. (mostly) away from the street. I don't have it directed at my driveway or the front yard at all.

Where is your front-of-the-house camera pointing that it records so much footage and do you really need it?

Nevertheless, I'm not trying to diminish your problem. There still seems to be a problem with how one-to-many rules are handled by the software.

Re: Rules causing strange behaviour - Rules conflict?

benj79 — Sun, 13 Mar 2016 17:26:57 GMT

Schorschi wrote:

Where is your front-of-the-house camera pointing that it records so much footage and do you really need it?

Sadly, yes. To monitor if vehicles damage my front garden by driving on it (some people seem to like to use my front garden as a turning space, causing damage to my lawn). Also to watch over my cars parked on my driveway.

This is the main reason I bought the cameras. The front facing camera essentially has two purposes - first, to monitor activing on my lawn and driveway and secondly to monitor people walking up to my house. Hence my problem.

It's also surpising how a bit of unnecessary footage adds up.

But yes, this is a problem that needs addressing. I am going to fill out a ticket.