JP1 Remotes

I am looking for an upgrade for my FLIRC. I intend to use those 100 signals to match up with 100 ish keyboard keys/combinations using FLIRC. (https://flirc.tv/)
Requirements:
1. Should not conflict with existing devices
2. No duplicate signals

I have tried to use some existing upgrades (I don't care what devices they are for, since I am going to train the signal to a keyboard mapping)
For couple of upgrades, I find that some of the keys are duplicates, which becomes a pain to manage

I have tried to add new functions by just filling in non existing OBC numbers, I think that doesn't completely work

One of the NECx2 upgrades that I tried had keys that also trigger the samsung TV, so I think that protocol is out. What are my options?

I have a sony12/15 protocol that is working well for another FLIRC, so I cannot use that for this FLIRC (both in the same room)

Thanks

My own similar question from a few years ago!
http://www.hifi-remote.com/forums/viewt ... highlight=

Robman's advice from that thread -
"I would advise that you use the NEC2 protocol with un-common device codes (so as to reduce the risk of you accidentally using the same code as one of your devices). If you use device code 240 and sub-device code 240, you should be safe. You should then program a unique OBC to each button on the remote.
"

I will try that .. I did not realize that the device/sub device combo changes the IR signal. Then it will not conflict with my TV .. I hope
So I open any upgrade that uses NEC2, change the device and subdevice and add as many OBCs as I need? That should work?

You don't need an existing upgrade, you can create one from scratch. Just select NEC1 and enter 211 as the device code and sub-device code, then enter as many OBCs in the Function list as you like, between 0 and 255.

I chose that device code at random, but it's one that I haven't seen in any built in setup code or any upgrade.

Thanks Robman .. I tried the one you had suggested in 2006 (NEC2, device 240 and subdevice 240) and that just worked for me .. (so far I am not seeing any conflicts/issues)

If it worked in 2006, what are you trying to do now that's different?

The Robman wrote:If it worked in 2006, what are you trying to do now that's different?

I don't think I did that in 2006. That forum thread had another member with a similar question and this was your answer to him. When I revisited the thread today, I saw that and decided to try that