You may well have, that's one interesting setup you have there, especially the mish-mash of half-working audio receivers.Jerbo wrote:Have I scared you away yet??![]()
This would take some serious study to see what savings could be made.
Moderator: Moderators
You may well have, that's one interesting setup you have there, especially the mish-mash of half-working audio receivers.Jerbo wrote:Have I scared you away yet??![]()
That's cool. (Now you know why it took me 4 straight days and 14 revisions to program this baby. And a pissed off wife who wasn't getting any help from me with the kids).The Robman wrote:You may well have, that's one interesting setup you have there, especially the mish-mash of half-working audio receivers.Jerbo wrote:Have I scared you away yet??![]()
This would take some serious study to see what savings could be made.
I'm not aware of there being any correlation between the remote's "speed" and the amount of free memory present.Jerbo wrote:Is it true that having a remote with more "room" for future upgrades/keymoves/macros, besides the obvious benefit, does it also enable the remote to be "faster" when running macros and/or save on battery power or anything? Not a big deal, but curious if you knew the answer.
While you don't need to add the upgrade, its always a good idea to "create" an upgrade that contains all the functions for your equipment, and then save that upgrade in the file section here.Jerbo wrote: I don't know how I got it in my head that to use EFC's (specifically discrete codes not on original remote) that I had to create my own upgrade file.