 |
JP1 Remotes
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
johnsfine
Site Admin
Joined: 10 Aug 2003
Posts: 4766
Location: Bedford, MA
|
 Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2009 2:26 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| mathdon wrote: | | One decode is due to John Fine, one of the wise gurus of JP1. The other is due to me |
I'm well aware that I did a rotten job of distinguishing between the data that ordinary users always need and the data that only experts need and only occasionally. I followed that up in some cases by failing to explain it in the html file.
We appreciate that you are doing a better job on the protocols you are adding or enhancing.
For RC5 there are cases where even an ordinary user may need to know the toggle bit value "T=" in a decode. The "U=" value is so obscure that even I would need to check the DecodeIR source code to find its actual meaning if I were looking at a decode in a strange enough situation that I needed to care about "U=".
I hope there aren't continuing bad feelings from Rob's suggestion that some details be omitted. We're not likely to all agree with each other on the "maybe needed" vs. "often confusing" tradeoff for any specific extra info. We don't really need to agree. Rob and others can give their opinions. You can accept those opinions or not as you judge best. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
The Robman
Site Owner
Joined: 01 Aug 2003
Posts: 21234
Location: Chicago, IL
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2009 4:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mathdon wrote: | | The Robman wrote: | | Why are you displaying this? I haven't been following this discussion so I may have missed something, but have we found a use for this info? If, as I believe, this part of the signal is junk ... |
Point 1. The display of this counter value is NOT MY IDEA. John's decode was written to display it in the same manner (as part of the protocol name). It didn't do so only because of a bug in his code.
Point 2. You may believe that the start frame is junk, but I don't. I am sure you are right that if I look at X10 signals in RemoteCentral I won't see that start frame. I have a JVC OEM remote that doesn't send the initial lead-in and so displays as JVC{2}. That is not evidence that *all* JVC remotes behave that way (we know they don't, of course). So just because some X10 remotes don't have this start frame doesn't mean that there are not later ones that do. I do not believe UEI would have put in such a specific and unusual frame just to confuse us. And as I have said, John felt it worth including and displaying, too.
Point 3. I am happy to stop developing DecodeIR, or IR.exe, or both, or to disappear from the JP1 world entirely. You have only to say the word.
Graham |
Wow, look what happens when I drop in and try to help. I won't offer any more opinions or insight on this one.
_________________
Rob
www.hifi-remote.com
Please don't PM me with remote questions, post them in the forums so all the experts can help!
Last edited by The Robman on Sat Oct 17, 2009 10:23 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tommy Tyler
Expert
Joined: 21 Sep 2003
Posts: 412
Location: Denver mountains
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2009 9:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I sure hate to see an honest difference of opinion cause any ill feelings among valued senior contributors to the forum. But of all the things for us to get heated up over, X10 for gosh sake! Who the hell cares? I'm sure Rob is not making up the story about what he was told about X10, but that all happened so long ago that it's impossible to know whether he was told the truth, or there was a simple misunderstanding, or whatever. But what really gets me is how this insignificant little wart of a protocol is causing grief among us. X10 is so miserably obsolete it's not even funny. X10 is garbage, junk. There are at least a half dozen newer technologies that have been developed over the past dozen years to do a better job of "wired wireless" control. During that time X10 technology remained stagnant (except perhaps for a half-hearted attempt to add a crude kind of "automatic gain control"). It would not have survived this long if it weren't so cheap. I have a cubic foot box full of that crap that anyone is welcome to that will pay the freight. After struggling for years trying to make it work reliably I yanked it all out. I don't even consider it dependable enough to turn on Christmas lights.
So please, please, lets keep the subject of this heated discourse in perspective. As far as I'm concerned, Graham has demonstrated over and over his ability to improve our software, and what's even more important, to do so in an open and transparent manner that invites comments and constructive suggestions. I think that entitles him to a 51% vote on any controversial matters, any day. Much of my engineering carreer was spent managing software designers, and I can tell you that it is rare to find one who can articulate as well as Graham when it comes to telling us what he has done and why. Thank heaven he is a mathematician by profession, and not a software engineer.
Tommy |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mathdon
Expert
Joined: 22 Jul 2008
Posts: 4523
Location: Cambridge, UK
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2009 6:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| johnsfine wrote: | | Rob and others can give their opinions. You can accept those opinions or not as you judge best. |
Thank you, John, especially as it is your software that I am tinkering with. That describes how I operate, indeed the only way I am prepared to operate.
| Tommy Tyler wrote: | | As far as I'm concerned, Graham has demonstrated over and over his ability to improve our software, and what's even more important, to do so in an open and transparent manner that invites comments and constructive suggestions. |
Thank you, Tommy, for those kind words. They describe what I hope I am doing.
| Tommy Tyler wrote: | | But of all the things for us to get heated up over, X10 for gosh sake! Who the hell cares? |
The irony is that I didn't even write the bit of the software that started it all. All I did was debug what John had written, which enabled the controversial counter value to appear.
As far as I am concerned, the matter is now closed.
_______________
Graham |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mathdon
Expert
Joined: 22 Jul 2008
Posts: 4523
Location: Cambridge, UK
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2009 7:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ElizabethD wrote: | These might need your look
- pid 007E PioneerMIX, perhaps refers to 4 device. I expected devices 170,211,175,212 from Devices.xls. I got Pioneer 170,175, Nec2 on 170 and RCA for 14, and considering how difficult Pioneer is for KM, I bet it is all ok. 3 files for this one as it's a curious one. Some decodes don't match what DecodeIR says especially the 50KHz signals in file c. Hmm, now that I think of it - if this setup code is for TV, transport buttons don't belong but I don't know what the transport device was at the time I ran this test. |
Although my main URC-7781 (JP1.2) doesn't have TV/0679, my URC-7940 (JP1.3) does, so I've checked what it does when there is no punchthrough. All buttons except three give device=170. Three buttons, however, send TWO signals alternately. These are, with the Device/OBC pairs they send,
Guide: 170/212, 175/97
Exit: 170/211, 175/116
Record: 170/211, 175/60
So it seems to me that the 211 and 212 listed as devices 3 and 4 are not actually devices, but are escape codes sent as OBC values that signify a following frame with different device code.
I think this resolves the last mystery, so I will call a halt to DecodeIR v2.38 and post it as final.
__________________
Graham |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mathdon
Expert
Joined: 22 Jul 2008
Posts: 4523
Location: Cambridge, UK
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2009 9:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
DecodeIR version 2.38 announced
I have posted the final version of DecodeIR.dll v2.38 and started a new thread with its announcement. The announcement also includes a link to the source file.
______________
Graham |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
File Section
Wiki
