JP1 Remotes

It doesn't seem to work. When I upload to the remote I get an error that says "writeRemote returned -1".

Unless there's an easier way, I'd like to create a new RDF for this remote. I downloaded the raw memory and posted it in the diagnostics area here: http://www.hifi-remote.com/forums/dload ... e_id=13581

Could someone help me by creating a basic RDF file?

rbautch wrote:It doesn't seem to work. When I upload to the remote I get an error that says "writeRemote returned -1".

Thats a general write failure and I don't think has anything to do with the RDF (as long as the writable areas in the RDF are right, which they are since there is no difference between the two variants)

I'm using that starter RDF for the development of an extender (which I can't seem to make work) and have not had issues with writing or reading to/from the remote.

rbautch wrote:I got the RDF for the 422-1 remote from the "RDF-Development" section in the File Section, and that works just fine with my 422-1 remotes...

Thanks for that info, http://www.hifi-remote.com/forums/dload ... e_id=13332

As unclemiltie said, that RDF does also work with Inteset 422-2.
So far the only thing is that, in the device layout page, functions can't directly be allocated to the set of four coloured buttons. Is there a reason for that?
(they do work if keymoved to those buttons)

The list of buttons that can be "directly" programmed in an upgrade (versus all of them that can be in key moves) is determined by a table in the remote that has a list of keys for each device type.

If those buttons are only for key moves then either (1) the remote doesn't allow them on direct upgrades or (2) the list in the RDF is wrong and doesn't match the remote.

My bet is that it's (1) since the RDF guys have ways of figuring this stuff out and they're pretty good at it.

I got it working using the link to the 422-1 RDF posted above. I was using an older version of the original 422 RDF dated 11/7/14. Thanks for the help!

tranx wrote:

rbautch wrote:I got the RDF for the 422-1 remote from the "RDF-Development" section in the File Section, and that works just fine with my 422-1 remotes...

Thanks for that info, http://www.hifi-remote.com/forums/dload ... e_id=13332

As unclemiltie said, that RDF does also work with Inteset 422-2.
So far the only thing is that, in the device layout page, functions can't directly be allocated to the set of four coloured buttons. Is there a reason for that?
(they do work if keymoved to those buttons)

Fyi, I am able to program the color buttons with any function on the device layout page on my 422-2 remote. I tried it using my Roku upgrade file and it worked just fine.

rbautch wrote:Fyi, I am able to program the color buttons with any function on the device layout page on my 422-2 remote. I tried it using my Roku upgrade file and it worked just fine.

That's interesting.
The link provided an 'Inteset-422-1.rdf' file, without image files,
and my RMIR folder only has images 'INT-422.map' and 'INT-422.jpg'.

I am hoping this might explain it, so do you have a map and jpg specifically for INT-422-1?
If so would you kindly link or upload them?

It's been discovered that the Inteset-422(3494) and Inteset-422-1(3595) have a mistake in the [Checksums] section. The middle line should be

^$200:$20A..$3FF

where the $20A used to be $202.

I've corrected it in the Inteset-422-1.RDF in the RDF Development section. The Inteset-422.RDF in the distribution needs to be corrected.

.
Thank you binky123

I have renewed with the latest RMIR package and put in the new Inteset-422-1.RDF, and done 981 to the INT-422-2 before uploading a Tv upgrade, but still find that in the device layout page:
functions can't directly be allocated to the set of four coloured buttons (nor, in the illustration, do they have the usual yellow outlines).

rbautch wrote:Fyi, I am able to program the color buttons with any function on the device layout page on my 422-2 remote. I tried it using my Roku upgrade file and it worked just fine.

What is wrong please? http://www.hifi-remote.com/forums/dload ... e_id=13582

binky,
I have modified the 3294 RDF in SourceForge. Is the existing line correct? It seems odd to me that the checksum (starts at 20A) would skip the first byte.

I also made the initial check in to SourceForge of the 3265 RDF.

3FG, thanks for updating SourceForge for the 3494 and 3565 RDFs.

The checksum starting address is correct as it starts at position $0A(it skips the checksum bytes and the signature but includes the setup codes and settings bits). The Advanced Code/KMM area is much farther away at offset $29.

tranx,
The problem was that the button names in the map file were different to the names in the RDF file. Here's a modified map file which works for me. If it works for you, I'll check it in.

BTW, even using the old map file, it is possible to assign the buttons using the Buttons tab rather than the Layout tab.

3FG,
Thanks very much for providing the modified INT-422.map, which does work for our 422-2

I only have that model but take it that the eight extra buttons at the bottom are printed with labels and symbols as follows :-

__TOP ROW____________________________________________
(422-1?): (PIP-On/Off) (PIP-Frs) (PIP-Ch+) (Live)
-----------------------------------------------------
422-2: ........ Star ........ Disc ..... Triangle .... Live


__BOTTOM ROW_________________________________________
(422-1?): (PIP-Swap) (PIP-Move) (PIP-Ch-) (Zoom)
-----------------------------------------------------
422-2: ......Eject ..... Diamond ... Square ... Zoom

For 422-2 at present it is a bit confusing to interpret the titles of those buttons in RMIR, with files according to the button-labels of 422-1.

The naming and numbering of the Inteset files themselves is already tricky but will have a go at modifying those which are working for me, to better suit the 422-2

3FG
I have edited .map, .rdf, and .jpg files to suit INT-422-2
http://www.hifi-remote.com/forums/dload ... e_id=13584

- they seem to work fine together, but I don't know if 'checksums' or something beyond my ken also needs to be changed!

If they are not faulty, and if you think it is worthwhile to incorporate them for more general use, would you kindly rename them and make whatever other adaptations are needed?