> If it only takes one of heating or cooling to do this, not both, a standard "dumb" thermostat can of course do this just fine. Just set it to "cool" or "heat" mode and set a temperature. But of course you will need to change modes as the season changes (unless you live somewhere where only one mode is ever needed).
Why ? What would be so hard in detecting "every time I don't do anything temperature goes up therefore summer and I need to use AC" ?
> If you want to not have to change modes when the season changes, it gets more complicated, because the simple control system in the standard thermostat is too dumb for that. For example, suppose you set your temperature to 75. The actual temperature rises to 76, above the setpoint, so your A/C comes on. It cools the house to 74 and then the thermostat shuts it off (you have to have some buffer so the A/C doesn't come on again almost immediately). Now the temperature is below the setpoint, so your heat comes on. It heats the house to 76 and then shuts off. Now the temperature is above the setpoint... You can see what's going on.
All would it take is to put a gate "if I used cooling to correct temperature last time, don't use heating for few hours or until it drops to higher difference and vice versa". You're trying to portray it in way more complicated way that it is.
> From a pure design perspective, the right way to solve this problem is an outside temperature sensor (and probably a sun sensor as well since sunlight is a significant heat input to your house), so the system can predict what will happen when both cooling and heating are off. Given reliable sensors, the control algorithm is fairly simple (automatic climate control systems in cars already do it). I have never seen this in a house, though. I'm not sure why.
Too simplistic. Which side of house you monitor, is it in shade or does it show temperature when sun heats up the wall ? Which room is closest to "hot" wall/window?. It would be a lot of work for very little improvement