Add "b2 col offset" to "Manual Settings"

wugger · Post by **wugger** » Mon Jan 02, 2006 12:27 pm

Can we have "b2 col offset" added to the manual settings section (in the "Setup" worksheet) of the KM workbook and linked to the "p-work" hidden worksheet for the calculations of manual settings?

Right now "b2 col offset" it is hard-coded to 0 (in the "p-work" worksheet) unlike the other manual settings which are derived from the settings in the "setup" worksheet. This limits the ability of the KM sheet to generate hex cmds using manual settings.

Thanks.

Post by **ElizabethD** » Mon Jan 02, 2006 1:39 pm

Is this related to your other thread
http://www.hifi-remote.com/forums/viewt ... 8749#38749

wugger · Post by **wugger** » Mon Jan 02, 2006 3:06 pm

this is a similar but seperate issue I noticed. there is not way to specify a manual b2 col offset in the manual settings of km

Post by **The Robman** » Mon Jan 02, 2006 3:26 pm

There's no way that a regular user would know how to set such a setting where it to be available to them. Each of the B2 columns in the hidden sheet that you mention has been custom made to work with a specific protocol.

Mark Pierson · Post by **Mark Pierson** » Mon Jan 02, 2006 3:28 pm

wugger wrote:there is not way to specify a manual b2 col offset in the manual settings of km

Since none of those details are documented, it's doubtfull I'll add a feature like that. You're looking at some of the more intricate workings of KM that most users need not be concerned with. They're primarily protocol-specific and most wouldn't apply in any other situation.

wugger · Post by **wugger** » Mon Jan 02, 2006 6:45 pm

OK, then you might consider taking out the "Manual Settings" feature all together since it already exposes Signal Style, Bits/Dev, Bits/CMD, and Fixed data which are all used in those calculation and could be too advanced for KM users as well.

Thanks.

Mark Pierson · Post by **Mark Pierson** » Mon Jan 02, 2006 7:34 pm

wugger wrote:OK, then you might consider taking out the "Manual Settings" feature all together

Why? It's a very useful feature that the experts around here use often. Manual Settings can't handle every protocol situation (which is why we have protocol-builder), but it does serve many specific needs.

Post by **The Robman** » Mon Jan 02, 2006 8:42 pm

wugger wrote:OK, then you might consider taking out the "Manual Settings" feature all together since it already exposes Signal Style, Bits/Dev, Bits/CMD, and Fixed data which are all used in those calculation and could be too advanced for KM users as well.

Could you explain your thinking behind this statement, or is it just an exercise in sarcasm?

wugger · Post by **wugger** » Mon Jan 02, 2006 9:02 pm

Could you explain your thinking behind this statement, or is it just an exercise in sarcasm?

Well I was told that that regular users would not need something like this:

There's no way that a regular user would know how to set such a setting where it to be available to them

Then I was told that manual settings was useful for expert users:

Why? It's a very useful feature that the experts around here use often.

So I guess my point is that an expert user do indeed use KM and but as you have pointed out, expert users must not want a bit offset setting function as part of those manual settings and they should just start building protocols at that point.

I guess I wouldn't need to be messing around with manual settings if I would figure out why all my sharp combo devices won't work in KM without COMP'n them by hacking the under the cover formulas in KM...

http://www.hifi-remote.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=5701

Post by **The Robman** » Mon Jan 02, 2006 9:07 pm

While it's true that experts do use the Manual Settings feature alot for new protocols, it's also available for regular users to use and they do on occassion use it.

It's not meant to be a solution to every situation.

If I may offer you one little bit of advice though, it's generally not a good idea to join a forum and start throwing sarcasm around in your first 8 posts, not if you're hoping to get help from the same people that you're being sarcastic to. Just my 2 cents.

Mark Pierson · Post by **Mark Pierson** » Tue Jan 03, 2006 4:43 am

wugger wrote:I guess I wouldn't need to be messing around with manual settings if I would figure out why all my sharp combo devices won't work in KM without COMP'n them by hacking the under the cover formulas in KM...

You did figure out a workaround to your problem, so all of this is moot, isn't it?

wugger · Post by **wugger** » Tue Jan 03, 2006 10:05 am

I have a couple work arounds at this point. My goal in joining the forum was to get an answer to the sharp/denon comp problem (see other thread) and get it fixed for other users if it is a problem for other users (or future) users. I am waiting for Rob to comment on that issue because it is either a problem in KM or something I don't understand with regard to Sharp vs. Denon.

This thread was started because no one had commented on the problem yet and I figured I would just use manual settings to store my remote .txt file off in KM (in the mean time) by correcting the COMP setting for my situation but in the process of doing that I noticed I couldn't offset bit two to replicate the bytecode for the protocol using manual settings (rendering manual settings not specific enough to do the job).

To be clear I am not stuck on anything, I always have the option of hacking up the lower level features of KM to get the bytecode I need to upload into the remote, it is a matter of trying to figure out the root of the problem I am dealing with and whether others will have the same issue.

I am fine with not updating manual settings. I agree it was a long shot to have any kind of offset function added to manual settings to begin with but I figured it never hurt to ask and see what happens.

I am fine with closing this thread at this point and hopefully seeing some more discussion on the root problem in my other post listed above.

Thanks for the feedback on this issue.