How does RM list remotes?

jamesgammel · Post by **jamesgammel** » Sun Oct 05, 2003 2:26 pm

I *thought* that RM lists remotes by the order that they are in the rdf file, but apparantly that's not true.

What I want to do is Have the beginning of the list start with the remotes that I have, not go searching through a long list of extraneous remotes and extenders.

How can we change the order? For example, I'd want to move the 7800, 1994, 2104, Mill4_B00, Mill4_B01_B04 to the beginning of the list. I don't see where it's exactly in some logical order anyway, either alphabetical, etc. since the first one in the drop down menue is the 1994 ex.3; then sometime later is the 1994, and the other 1994 extenders. So, how do we customize the drop-down menue remote order?

Jim

gfb107 · Post by **gfb107** » Sun Oct 05, 2003 3:08 pm

Remotes are currently sorted by name (the part between the parens in the file name).

I've been thinking about adding a choice between listing "All remotes" or only "My remotes", where you could add and remove remotes from your list.

jamesgammel · Post by **jamesgammel** » Sun Oct 05, 2003 3:11 pm

I like that idea. I'll consider that YOUR feature request

Jim

Mark Pierson · Post by **Mark Pierson** » Wed Oct 08, 2003 5:07 pm

gfb107 wrote:I've been thinking about adding a choice between listing "All remotes" or only "My remotes", where you could add and remove remotes from your list.

That's a nice addition, Greg.

I think perhaps the RDF filenames should follow some sort of "official" format. For example, the majority of the RadioShack remotes are called "(RS 15-####...)" while a few are simply "(15-####...)". The same is true for the OFA models "(URC-####...)" vs "(####....)". Then there's the extender for the 601x/801x/881x family thats named "(6012x?...)" which has to confuse at least a few people.

My personal feeling is that the RS models should all be "(15-####...)"; the OFA's should all be "(URC-####...)", etc.

Maybe in an upcoming release, the RDF naming can become standardized? This would go a long way to keeping the list of remotes somewhat organized.

Mark Pierson · Post by **Mark Pierson** » Wed Oct 08, 2003 5:09 pm

Mark Pierson wrote:the 601x/801x/881x family...

While we're at it, the 601x should probably get its own RDF and corresponding image since it's physically different from the 801x/881x.

Post by **The Robman** » Wed Oct 08, 2003 6:00 pm

Is there a way to have the three remotes share an RDF while using different images?

And just FYI, the 601x and 801x are almost identical, it's the 8811 that's different.

johnsfine · Post by **johnsfine** » Wed Oct 08, 2003 6:02 pm

I think a different RDF for the different physical versions of the 8810 family would be far too confusing, especially since there are already differring eeproms and extenders driving the number of RDFs.

It would be nice to give the user a decent way to specify which image he wants in that case, but please find a better way than multiplying the number of RDFs.

gfb107 · Post by **gfb107** » Wed Oct 08, 2003 8:43 pm

How far do we want to take this?

Do we want each model that shares an RDF to be listed separately in the remote drop-down? I think that would be the least confusing and most consistent user experience.

RM takes the names of the remotes from the file name.
Inside the RDF is an entry (ImageMap=) that names the .map file that specifies the image used and the shapes of the buttons.

We could somehow markup the filename so that RM could identify that the RDF represents multiple models.

For example:

Instead of (URC-881x_801x_601x) we could do (URC-[881x|801x|601x])

which would mean there are 3 models defined by this RDF: URC-881x URC-801x, and URC-601x

I would then change the ImageMap= entry so that it would have the same number of map files, and these would correspond to the models positionally.

ImageMap=urc881x.map|urc801x.map|urc601x.map

Thoughts?

Nils_Ekberg · Post by **Nils_Ekberg** » Thu Oct 09, 2003 4:47 am

I was thinking along the same lines as Greg. The RDF could be named
(URC-[881x|801x|601x]) and have the 3 maps in the ImageMap like ImageMap=urc881x.map|urc801x.map|urc601x.map as Greg indicated.

All that then leaves is how to select the actual remote. My thought was that the remote selection list would have a seperate entry by the real or descriptive name of the remote like URC-801x, URC-881x, RS 15-2116/2117, RS 15-2116/2117 Extender 1 etc. including the extenders. The remote list would get large but no additional rdf's would be required. It should probably be a panel with radio buttons instead of a pull down. If we wanted to get fancy it could be thumbnails of the remotes but that is pie in the sky.

Either way the list could be built from the names of the maps in the image folder but that would require building a map for each remote and their extenders.

gfb107 · Post by **gfb107** » Thu Oct 09, 2003 5:51 am

In my proposal, each of the three models would appear in the drop-down as a separate remote, so the user would not ever have to choose which image is used.

For example, the user could pick remote URC-801x, which because it is the second remote named in the RDF file name, would use the second imagemap, which is urc810x.map

Nils_Ekberg · Post by **Nils_Ekberg** » Thu Oct 09, 2003 8:22 am

Sounds good to me and less complicated. I was not suggesting the user select the image I was just suggesting we use the image names to build the remote list but your way sounds easier.

Nils_Ekberg · Post by **Nils_Ekberg** » Thu Oct 09, 2003 10:33 am

Greg

Let me know when you plan a release so I can upload some maps and images.

Chris got me thinking about the image sizes and I realized there really was not a standard image screen size (height and width). So, I went thru all the images and resized them so they were all about the same height around 465 pixels. This change and the sizing that Chris did brings the average image size down ranging 11 to 18K without loosing quality.

I can also start renaming RDF's and images if you wish. Just let me know if the format in the file name will be what you proposed. There is however, one problem with the RDF name you proposed (URC-[881x|801x|601x]) since Windows will not allow the | in a file name so maybe each remote needs to be within []'s like

(URC-[881x][801x][601x])

gfb107 · Post by **gfb107** » Thu Oct 09, 2003 11:29 am

I'd like to get more feedback on this, particularly concerning any impact on IR, before I go any further.

I think standardizing the file names is a good idea, but unfortunately CVS doesn't like renaming. I'll actually have to delete all the old files and create new files, meaning the new files won't have any history. Not a huge loss, but a loss nonetheless.

Nils_Ekberg · Post by **Nils_Ekberg** » Thu Oct 09, 2003 12:00 pm

OK, I agree that it is a good idea to get more feedback.

I did some testing with IR with different file names and it did not seem to cause any impact.

I caught the issue with the renaming so it may be a good idea when we do move ahead to make a complete package of Maps, Images, and RDF's and start fresh.

Once again, let me know when to upload the images and maps that went thru the weight loss program which by the way is all of them.

jamesgammel · Post by **jamesgammel** » Thu Oct 09, 2003 12:22 pm

Speaking of rdf's. I noticed two toshiba rdf's both with the same signature. One is for a 128b eeprommed remote, the other for a 2K remote. The 2K version looks to be pretty complete other than being stuck with a generic .map. The 128b one is pretty deplete, ie, no buttonmaps, digitmaps, and protocols sections. Do we have someone who has the remote (the 128b one) who can finish the rdf? What about images? I did see that the fixed data section is different, so IR can apparantly choose the right rdf.

Jim