(a detailed reply so that it can be referred to for future queries on this matter)
Hi @tobiaspedersentsp, implementing lighting controls in HB[+] has been on the backburner for quite a while. @mostapha and I have been talking about implementing the lighting controls functionality from Daysim and DaysimPS inside Honeybee[+]. Since Honeybee can practically do any number of window groups, as opposed to only two in Daysim, this can be a real game changer in terms of the way shading systems are evaluated. Additionally, we can also support any number of sensors, BSDFs, cloud-based workflows etc (none of which, again, are possible through Daysim).
Before I became involved with Ladybug Tools, I had posed a question similar to yours on the forum in 2015. You can see @mostapha’s reply here: Python Subprocess vs Windows Batch file performance/preference. The reply to your suggestion about helping out would be the same.
Addressing your question specifically, the two options would be to either expose this option in the Legacy version, or undertake new development in HB[+]. If this is for a one-time office project or something similar, the first option would likely be easier(I would suggest creating an issue for exposing that functionality if it doesn’t exist). If you are working on something long term instead, it might be worth the time and effort to get involved in HB[+]. Compared to the legacy version, HB[+] API is very well documented and the object-oriented framework is pretty stable as well. The core-library in HB[+] was designed to facilitate addition of new features with minimal coding, so, you won’t required to do much coding. The primary effort is required in creating/running test cases in Daysim and then testing if the results match in the replicated functionality in HB[+].