Another happy USB customer...

Mark Pierson · Post by **Mark Pierson** » Wed Oct 01, 2003 4:53 pm

Phriendly wrote:Ok you must just live in an alternate reality where the laws of nature are different(argggggg).

Funny... my wife says the same thing about my addiction to JP1 remotes!

To keep things common, for the test just use the 1994 since I have one here also. This should keep the variables to a minimum.

Ok, I'll stuff all the others back in the drawer...

Make sure you have a backup of the 0.03A that you downloaded from the files section. Then download from the file section the 0.03A there.
...
Again PLEASE keep the original 0.03A that you have working there.

Done. I saved my 0.03, and downloaded the "USB-0.03A.zip" file you uploaded on 09/30/2003 (it only contained ProjectUSB.exe). This new 0.03 still up/downloads without any error messages.

Next???...

Phriendly · Post by **Phriendly** » Wed Oct 01, 2003 5:11 pm

Phriendly wrote:
Mark Pierson wrote:no batteries
NO BATTERIES, (sorry I just noticed this). I thought the remote would not work if there were no batteries in it. Even the Standare JP1 for the parallel port doesn't supply power for the remote. I find this confusing.

Try some testing,again using only the 1994 remote. Lets be verrrry methodical. With each battery configuration 3,4,old,new,none. use first 0.03A then 0.06A.
I.E.
3 cells: use first 0.03A, Note the results. Then use 0.06A, Note the results.
Change Batter Configuration and repeat.

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, I just thought of somehting.
Before you do the battery changeoff do the following to give me some info. Use the 1994. Use IR.EXE and download the 1994's data. Save it to a file. We will use this in my program later. This is just to give us a known data patern.

Bring up 0.03A. file->open->1994.txt (that you saved from IR.EXE).
EEPROM Test Tab, Read I2C button, Compare button. Report any compare errors. You can look at both windows for a basic compare difference before you hit the "compare" button. If the top window has changing data, and the bottom "read data" windows is all 00's then don't bother hitting compare, just tell me what you see. Not every byte, just that it's all zero's.

Do the same w/ 0.06A please.

Joe.
Joe.

Mark Pierson · Post by **Mark Pierson** » Wed Oct 01, 2003 5:34 pm

Phriendly wrote:NO BATTERIES, (sorry I just noticed this). I thought the remote would not work if there were no batteries in it. Even the Standare JP1 for the parallel port doesn't supply power for the remote. I find this confusing.

With NO batteries, 03 appears to work; 06 gives a the same SendPacket error I've been getting.

Try some testing,again using only the 1994 remote. Lets be verrrry methodical. With each battery configuration 3,4,old,new,none. use first 0.03A then 0.06A.

I've already done this. It doesn't seem to matter what battery configuration I use: 03 works, 06 doesn't.

Before you do the battery changeoff do the following to give me some info. Use the 1994. Use IR.EXE and download the 1994's data. Save it to a file. We will use this in my program later. This is just to give us a known data patern.
...
EEPROM Test Tab, Read I2C button, Compare button. Report any compare errors.

First of all, I can't do a normal EEPROM download using IR (it's a long story). However, I have the "1994.txt" file from the IR archive that I've uploaded to the 1994 using 03. Using that as my test file, I did as you requested and got no errors or compare problems with 03. Using 06, I get nothing but the endless loop of "SendPacket - Read System Variables - ERROR" message (with 3, 4, or no batteries; doesn't matter).

Phriendly · Post by **Phriendly** » Wed Oct 01, 2003 6:18 pm

Mark,
Oh drat. I though you may have had SDA grounded somehow. For if it is grounded then this can fake out the I2C read and not report any errors.
I'm looking into the

SendPacket - Read System Variables - ERROR

since this should not happen. This is saying the call to the DLL is returning an error. I've never seen this before.

Sorry, it's not funny. Seems like this is the answer I get most of the time (not seen it before).

A question I should have asked before: what operating system are you using win9X,nt,win2k,winxp ??.

Joe

Mark Pierson · Post by **Mark Pierson** » Wed Oct 01, 2003 6:31 pm

Phriendly wrote:Oh drat. I though you may have had SDA grounded somehow. For if it is grounded then this can fake out the I2C read and not report any errors.

On both interfaces that I built, I double checked everything during assembly. After the errors started, I went back and double checked everything again. As long as your schematic is correct, so are my interfaces.

This is saying the call to the DLL is returning an error. I've never seen this before.

If that's the case, why would the newer versions (05/06) have that problem and not the older one (03)?

what operating system are you using

Win98SE

Phriendly · Post by **Phriendly** » Wed Oct 01, 2003 8:26 pm

Mark,
Ok I put a USB in my win98 system. Guess what, it works also<arggggggg>. Both version 0.03A & 0.07A (somewhat updated 0.06A).

I'm pulling at straws now. Do you have different directorys for each version?. If so can you do a file compare of these directorys to see if there are any differences besides the EXE file?. I will look more at this, but I'm not sure what else to do besides slowly update 0.03A till it fails on your system.

Joe.

Phriendly · Post by **Phriendly** » Thu Oct 02, 2003 2:23 am

Mark,
On my win98 system I was able to reproduce the "SendPacket = Read System Variables - Error". The difference is that version 0.03A doesn't use this as much as I do in version 0.05A and on. I only notice this error on a win98 system not my win2k system. I will need to contact Delcom to see what they have to say on this. I've tried retrying the DLL call w/ little help.

Joe.

Phriendly · Post by **Phriendly** » Fri Oct 03, 2003 7:45 am

Mark,
I've uploaded 0.07A to the jp1 files. I haven't heard back from Delcom, but I no longer use their DLL to handle the packets. Both my win98 & win2k systems work w/ this change. So give it a try and get back to me please.

Joe.

Post by **The Robman** » Fri Oct 03, 2003 8:39 am

Joe,
It's obvious that you're putting alot of time and effort into this, and I just wanted to say that it's not going un-noticed. I for one really appreciate it.

As more and more PCs are being made without parallel ports, this effort will become more and more important.

Btw, are you keeping Tommy Tyler in the loop with this? He doesn't check the forums much but I know he's very interested in what you are doing. Who knows, once he fully understands your hardware design, he might be able to simplify it a bit. If you're interested, check out the design for the original interface box that we used to use (in fact, I still do) and compare it to Tommy's Simple interface which is the current standard!

Mark Pierson · Post by **Mark Pierson** » Fri Oct 03, 2003 9:03 am

Phriendly wrote:I've uploaded 0.07A... So give it a try and get back to me please.

I'll test it when I get home this evening and let you know.

I'll second Rob's sentiments. Your efforts are really appreciated... thank you! I think this USB interface will become as popular as the current Simple.

Phriendly · Post by **Phriendly** » Fri Oct 03, 2003 1:11 pm

Thanks guys. I'm enjoying what I can do. I don't have the expertise that many of you have, but I keep plugging along.

Rob, I'm talking w/ both Mark Pauler and Tommy Tyler. I'm really appreciative for both of them. W/o Marks help I doubt if I would have been able to try these different things w/ the software. Tommy has been of great help w/ his expertise w/ the hardware as well.

Joe.

Mark Pierson · Post by **Mark Pierson** » Fri Oct 03, 2003 3:28 pm

Mark Pierson wrote:
Phriendly wrote:I've uploaded 0.07A... So give it a try and get back to me please.
I'll test it when I get home this evening and let you know.

You da man!!!

Version 0.07A seems to work just fine! I can download, save, open, and upload without getting any errors. It even appears to be the correct data, too!

Thanks for all your effort on this, Joe! What's next?

W/o Marks help I doubt if I would have been able to try these different things w/ the software.

So when's he gonna to add the USB code to IR???

Phriendly · Post by **Phriendly** » Fri Oct 03, 2003 4:48 pm

Mark,
Mark Pauker has been working on it for some days. So that is in the works. We are working on some changes to the schematic to gives us somethings to help us w/ diagnostics. Those few USB interfaces that are build will only have 1 wire to move for it to work w/ the new version. Also we are going to add a resetable fuse to pretect the computer.

Joe.

Mark Pierson · Post by **Mark Pierson** » Sat Oct 11, 2003 4:25 pm

Just thought I'd post an update on my USB interface. Joe's latest version 0.09A (NOTE: there's been a minor design change to the circuit) works flawlessly. I've also had the pleasure of testing the IR beta with USB support (though I'm not sure when Mark Pauker will be releasing it), and have used it successfully with all my remotes (1994, 2103, 2104, and 8810w).

The USB interface seems to be the next logical step for JP1 as many new PC's (especially laptops) don't have parallel ports. It's very easy to build (about the same as a Micro interface, and not much more difficult than a Simple), but it's a bit more expensive at $25-$30.

Hat's off to Joe Cutler (original concept), Tommy Tyler (hardware revisions), and Mark Pauker (IR code changes) for bringing this to life!

JP1 Remotes

Another happy USB customer...

Really happy with USB now!