 |
JP1 Remotes
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
xnappo
Expert
Joined: 30 Dec 2003
Posts: 861
|
 Posted: Sun Aug 29, 2010 10:35 am Post subject: New RDF and Maps/Image Release 1.31 |
 |
|
I have released a new version of the RDFs and Maps.
Here are the changes:
- Added Atlas OCAP 3A333A33 extender and updated per checker tool
- Added URC-7080/URC-7081 extender RDFs (mathdon)
- Added URC-7940 RDF/map/image (mathdon)
- Added URC-6820N/8820N/10820N and synced with PM, added setup codes
- Added URC-7544B01 RDF and image
- Fixed mime-type so individual RDFs are easily downloaded from SourceForge (thx Greg)
- Added BINOBJ ReplayTV RDF
The new files are in the files area and Sourceforge areas are linked.
http://www.hifi-remote.com/forums/dload.php?action=file&file_id=8454
Regards,
xnappo
Last edited by xnappo on Fri Jan 14, 2011 9:38 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
vickyg2003
Site Admin
Joined: 20 Mar 2004
Posts: 7073
Location: Florida
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 10, 2010 8:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
In working with RMIR I discovered a long standing error in the device section in the 10820 and 10820n and extender files RDF's.
I don't know how to fill these in, you'll need to find an expert, but I do know that the default device type of DVD isn't AUD.
_________________
Remember to provide feedback to let us know how the problem was solved and share your upgrades.
Tip: When creating an upgrade, always include ALL functions from the oem remote, even if you never plan on assigning them to a button. Complete function lists makes an upgrade more helpful to others.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mathdon
Expert
Joined: 22 Jul 2008
Posts: 4523
Location: Cambridge, UK
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 11, 2010 4:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| vickyg2003 wrote: | In working with RMIR I discovered a long standing error in the device section in the 10820 and 10820n and extender files RDF's.
I don't know how to fill these in, you'll need to find an expert, but I do know that the default device type of DVD isn't AUD. |
I think this is a behaviour that occurs in other RDFs, too. It is due to the creator not properly following the RDF spec. Here is an extract from the spec for the [DeviceTypes] section:
There should be an entry for each device button listed in the [DeviceButtons] section, and these entries must be in the same order.
...
The [DeviceTypes] section for the URC-7070 repeats device types and uses 16-bit DevTypeNum values, and looks like this:
| Code: | [DeviceTypes]
Cable/SAT = 0,$0000
TV = 0,$0101
Cable/SAT = 0,$0000
VCR/DVD = 1,$0202
CD/Audio = 1,$0303
CD/Audio = 1,$0303
CD/Audio = 1,$0303
VCR/DVD = 1,$0202 |
At some point the need for such repetitions has got forgotten, which is that this list gives the default device types for the device buttons, and if two or more device buttons have the same default type then that type will need to occur more than once in the [DeviceTypes] section. Note that when this is needed, the second numeric field (DevTypeNum) must be given, since the default behaviour when this is omitted is to add $0101 to the preceding value.
While I am writing this, can I also point out that there are RDFs in which there is not always a blank line between sections. In particular, I think, this has happened with the creation of the [SetupCodes] sections, which are not always separated from the previous one by a blank line. In IR.exe this causes an error message something like "[SetupCodes] is not a valid integer value."
_________________
Graham |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
xnappo
Expert
Joined: 30 Dec 2003
Posts: 861
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 11, 2010 7:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mathdon wrote: |
I think this is a behaviour that occurs in other RDFs, too. It is due to the creator not properly following the RDF spec. [...]
[list]There should be an entry for each device button listed in the [DeviceButtons] section, and these entries must be in the same order.
|
I think we went through in the last round and added all the entries - however Vicky and I were not aware that they had to be in the same order as well.
| Quote: |
While I am writing this, can I also point out that there are RDFs in which there is not always a blank line between sections. In particular, I think, this has happened with the creation of the [SetupCodes] sections, which are not always separated from the previous one by a blank line. In IR.exe this causes an error message something like "[SetupCodes] is not a valid integer value." |
So Vicky... Got any time to update the RDF checker/repairer?
Thanks,
xnappo |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vickyg2003
Site Admin
Joined: 20 Mar 2004
Posts: 7073
Location: Florida
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
I will make time tomorrow, to make sure all the RDF's have a blank line prior to all section headers.
The device section on the 4 10820 type RDF's is up to you finding someone that knows how. There is a real complicated comma formula used in most of the rdfs that I haven't a clue how to interpret. I think the 10820 was just a clone from an RDF from another remote, that I would have not seen because I ALWAYS start from a download for my remotes, since I have trouble with device selection.
The new RMIR is going to be problematic for me.
_________________
Remember to provide feedback to let us know how the problem was solved and share your upgrades.
Tip: When creating an upgrade, always include ALL functions from the oem remote, even if you never plan on assigning them to a button. Complete function lists makes an upgrade more helpful to others.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mathdon
Expert
Joined: 22 Jul 2008
Posts: 4523
Location: Cambridge, UK
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 11, 2010 11:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mdavej wrote: | | I think we went through in the last round and added all the entries - however Vicky and I were not aware that they had to be in the same order as well. |
If you didn't get what Vicky calls the "comma formula" right then this will itself cause problems. If you have duplicate entries, as in the URC-7070 one I quoted, you must use the "comma formula".
| vickyg2003 wrote: | | The new RMIR is going to be problematic for me. |
Why?
_________________
Graham |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gfb107
Expert
Joined: 03 Aug 2003
Posts: 3411
Location: Cary, NC
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 11, 2010 11:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mathdon wrote: |
| vickyg2003 wrote: | | The new RMIR is going to be problematic for me. |
Why? |
Because she always starts by downloading from the remote, and the process of migrating a download to an RMIR produces results she finds unacceptable.
Vicky, when you say always does that mean just for creating the initial configuration, or every time you edit your configuration?
If it is just the initial download, I think you can be productive by simply cleaning up that download before you start building your configuration.
If you are really downloading before every edit session, I have to ask why that is necessary.
Downloading into an existing configuration that is close to the downloaded configuration may produce better results for you
_________________
-- Greg
Original RemoteMaster developer
JP1 How-To's and Software Tools
The #1 Code Search FAQ and it's answer (PLEASE READ FIRST) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ElizabethD
Advanced Member
Joined: 09 Feb 2004
Posts: 2348
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 11, 2010 1:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
In the RDF distribution v1.30, is there any difference between these two files
PVR0PVx1 (URC-6131(Old)_6131nwB00 Extender1).rdf
PVR0PVx1 (URC-6131(Old)_6131nwB00 PVR Remote Extender1 2K).rdf
I think they're the same. Maybe the duplication is needed for some compatibility?
Hmmm, is there RDF v1.31 ? --- oops I just found it
_________________
Liz
Tweeking 8910, HTPro/9811, C7-7800, 6131o, 6131n, AtlasOCAP-1056B01, RCA-RCRP05B and enjoying the ride  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
xnappo
Expert
Joined: 30 Dec 2003
Posts: 861
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 11, 2010 5:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ElizabethD wrote: | In the RDF distribution v1.30, is there any difference between these two files
PVR0PVx1 (URC-6131(Old)_6131nwB00 Extender1).rdf
PVR0PVx1 (URC-6131(Old)_6131nwB00 PVR Remote Extender1 2K).rdf
I think they're the same. Maybe the duplication is needed for some compatibility?
Hmmm, is there RDF v1.31 ? --- oops I just found it |
One is for the standard remote and the other is for one with a 2K EEPROM.
I suggest using the tool 'WinMerge' to compare two files...
xnappo
xnappo |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vickyg2003
Site Admin
Joined: 20 Mar 2004
Posts: 7073
Location: Florida
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 11, 2010 6:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Is there anything else you want besides a Section check?
Any other reports?
Most of the RDF analysis tool were made to make sure that images, maps, RDF's match, but if other things speak now.
Graham I'll answer your question in the RMIR thread.
_________________
Remember to provide feedback to let us know how the problem was solved and share your upgrades.
Tip: When creating an upgrade, always include ALL functions from the oem remote, even if you never plan on assigning them to a button. Complete function lists makes an upgrade more helpful to others.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
xnappo
Expert
Joined: 30 Dec 2003
Posts: 861
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 11, 2010 6:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| vickyg2003 wrote: | Is there anything else you want besides a Section check?
Any other reports?
Most of the RDF analysis tool were made to make sure that images, maps, RDF's match, but if other things speak now.
Graham I'll answer your question in the RMIR thread. |
Well, while you are updating it if Graham/Dave/Greg could explain how to programmatically check the DeviceButtons section - could you add that even if not fully understanding it?
Thanks,
xnappo |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vickyg2003
Site Admin
Joined: 20 Mar 2004
Posts: 7073
Location: Florida
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 11, 2010 6:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| xnappo wrote: | | vickyg2003 wrote: | Is there anything else you want besides a Section check?
Any other reports?
Most of the RDF analysis tool were made to make sure that images, maps, RDF's match, but if other things speak now.
Graham I'll answer your question in the RMIR thread. |
Well, while you are updating it if Graham/Dave/Greg could explain how to programmatically check the DeviceButtons section - could you add that even if not fully understanding it?
Thanks,
xnappo |
Can programmatically check, IF someone can give me a good set of rules. But what would we be programmically checking? I don't have the real data, but if there are violations or not enough commas I can certainly spit out a report.
_________________
Remember to provide feedback to let us know how the problem was solved and share your upgrades.
Tip: When creating an upgrade, always include ALL functions from the oem remote, even if you never plan on assigning them to a button. Complete function lists makes an upgrade more helpful to others.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
xnappo
Expert
Joined: 30 Dec 2003
Posts: 861
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 11, 2010 7:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
My understanding is this, but it needs verification!
1. Check that the number of entries in [DeviceTypes] matches [DeviceButtons].
2. Check that if there are duplicate entries in [DeviceTypes] that the entries have a comma and a specified value.
Now.. That only tells us whether the RDF writer *tried* to do this section correctly.
Perhaps we can start with just that and see how bad the situation is.
If anyone knows where this data comes from so we could cross-reference (if anywhere) please chime in!
xnappo |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vickyg2003
Site Admin
Joined: 20 Mar 2004
Posts: 7073
Location: Florida
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There are 32 RDF's with at least one section that isn't preceded by a blank line, 11 of those sections are Setup sections.
I'm not sure if in a situations like this is appropriate to add lines or not?
[DeviceTypeAliases]
Cable = Cable,SAT,Video Acc
TV = TV
VCR = VCR,DVD,Tape,Laserdisc,PVR
Audio = CD,Tuner,DAT,Home Auto,Misc Audio,Phono,Amp
# MultiMacros compliant with IR v6 or above
# second signature "NAV0"
[FixedData]
$0FC= $4E $41 $56 $30
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are 77 remotes where there are fewer devicetype entries, than device type buttons.
There are 32 remotes where there are more device types than device buttons than device buttons, I assume that these will turn up to be LCD remotes, but I don't understand the sequence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_________________
Remember to provide feedback to let us know how the problem was solved and share your upgrades.
Tip: When creating an upgrade, always include ALL functions from the oem remote, even if you never plan on assigning them to a button. Complete function lists makes an upgrade more helpful to others.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Robman
Site Owner
Joined: 01 Aug 2003
Posts: 21234
Location: Chicago, IL
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 12, 2010 6:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| vickyg2003 wrote: | There are 32 RDF's with at least one section that isn't preceded by a blank line, 11 of those sections are Setup sections.
I'm not sure if in a situations like this is appropriate to add lines or not?
[DeviceTypeAliases]
Cable = Cable,SAT,Video Acc
TV = TV
VCR = VCR,DVD,Tape,Laserdisc,PVR
Audio = CD,Tuner,DAT,Home Auto,Misc Audio,Phono,Amp
# MultiMacros compliant with IR v6 or above
# second signature "NAV0"
[FixedData]
$0FC= $4E $41 $56 $30 |
I don't think comments (ie, lines beginning with the # symbol) count, so therefore, in the snippet above, the [FixedData] section *is* preceded by a blank line.
_________________
Rob
www.hifi-remote.com
Please don't PM me with remote questions, post them in the forums so all the experts can help! |
|
| 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
