Should KM and RM produce the same upgrade from the same .txt

gilber · Post by **gilber** » Wed Dec 15, 2004 9:44 pm

Let me say first that up until recently I have always used KM for creating my device upgrades. This week, I decided to take the plunge into RM, so I downloaded the most recent version (1.11) and started to import my KM upgrades (.txt).

I ran into a case, though, when importing the KM file into RM produced a slightly different output. The one produced by KM was correct, the one produced by RM produces unexpected results (functions mapped to the wrong buttons, buttons with no visible function assigned, etc). As far as I can see, everything looks correct in RM (all the button assignments and function definitions), and in IR (although IR has crashed a couple of times when importing the RM output, never when importing the KM output).

So my question is, are there any incompatibilities known between these two tools? It seems to me that using the exact same upgrade definition file, both should produce the same upgrade output for importing into IR, am I correct?

For those interested, the upgrade in question is for a Dish 721 PVR (using the Dish Network protocol), on a RS-2104 with the Extender. I can make the actual file available to anyone interested.

gfb107 · Post by **gfb107** » Thu Dec 16, 2004 8:11 am

Hi there, neighbor!

RM will not produce identical output to KM. For one thing, RM uses whitespace a little differentlt than KM, and RM uses lowercase characters for hex. Also, RM will produce the keymoves that are part of a device upgrade in a different order than KM will. None of these differences should cause any issues with IR.

There are some things that KM supports that RM doesn't (yet). One of these is the "keymoves" tab. There are also a few protocols that KM supports that RM doesn't (yet).

We do occasionally run into a KM device upgrade that RM has trouble importing. Sometimes RM chooses a different variant of the protocol executor. Or it could just be that you are the first to try importing an upgrade that uses a particular protocol, and there are some issues there.

Please make the KM file available.

gilber · Post by **gilber** » Thu Dec 16, 2004 9:55 pm

I understand about the spacing and formatting differences between the two. But in this case, it was the actual "content" of the upgrade what was different...

Since I ran into this I've been comparing the output of the two for all the upgrades I've been importing, and this is the only instance I've encountered a difference.

Is there any way to post a file as an attachment to the thread or something? How can I make the file available? I'd rather not post it in a place like the Yahoo files section, given the problems I've had with it, but I'd happily make it available if it's somehow going to contribute to the improvement of the tools.

gfb107 · Post by **gfb107** » Fri Dec 17, 2004 8:21 am

At the moment, the Diagnosis Area at Yahoo is the preferred place for putting files. There is an effort underway to include a file section here at the forums.

If Yahoo doesn't work, and since RM and KM files are text files, you can just paste the contents directly into your reply. I would put it inside a code block

Code: Select all

to separate it from other text.