JP1 Remotes

Fortunately, there is no dictatorship here and whether someone disagrees or fundamentally disagrees, it's still just 1 vote.

And for the record, I fundamentally agree with the inclusion of discrete phantom codes, and if the RDFs don't include them, I will publish clear instructions so everyone can add them themselves, like JezW just did.

I am fundamentally opposed to any dumbing down of JP1, just because a rookie might get confused, especially if it means removing functionality that the rest of us might want.

I have liked the extenders and RDFs that call 2 of their Phantoms Discrete ON and Discrete OFF. For devices that have discrete codes they go there. For devices that do not, I put the ToadTog on those. So, in the macro programming, for any kind of device I use Discrete ON (or OFF) making the macro more readable.

I am not overly fond of my Nevo C2, but one of the nice things is that it uses the function name, so the macros are much more readable. The big down side is the lack of ToadTog.

In any case, the functionality is not effected by naming them Phantom7 and Phantom8 (for example) instead of Discrete ON and OFF it only effects the readability of the macros that use them. On the other hand, naming them "Discrete ON" (and OFF) appears to reduce the number of phantoms. (It does not, it just makes the macros MUCH more confusing if you use them for something other than the implied purpose.)

If this issue were being discussed before any extender had implemented it this way, I expect the "Discrete ?" names wouldn't be used. Since I have used it an like it, I would hate to see it removed from anywhere it is currently used. So, at this point in time, the question is whether to name them correctly ("Phantom n") or consistent with other extenders ("Discrete ?"). Sorry I didn't really help to answer that question.

I agree with 3FG's argument for RDF purity, so to speak. However, since we don't have aliases to make macros more readable, modifying the RDF is the next best thing even though it strays from the true remote definition. I thought putting them at the end of phantoms made it clear these aren't physical buttons, but can see how it could cause confusion.

I've made many other changes to my copies of RDFs because I may not like the button order, capitalization, abbreviations, phantom names/numbers, whatever. So leaving such things up to individual users is certainly a valid approach.

Ultimately the decision lies with the author of the RDF. So Graham, if you think it's a bad idea, don't do it. I have no problem either way.

I have split this and made it a poll.

As I use the DiscreteON/OFF phantoms extensively in my remote setup, I am strongly in favor of including them in all RDFs. Obviously they are already in most RDFs, but the question is should they be in all RDFs.

My view is, if you are against them, don't use them, simple. I believe it should be up to the end user. And knowing that if you don't include them, a certain number of end users, including myself, will edit the RDFs to include them, why not include them.

Does anyone have a good argument as to why we should try to force people to not use them?

What have I started here

The only issue that I had was because I am a novice to JP1, I did not know how to rename the phantom buttons. Since phantom buttons are only introduced with the installation of an extender, perhaps instructions to rename them can be included in the extender manuals. This way, people that don't want them renamed aren't affected. And those that do, know how to.

JezW wrote:What have I started here

The only issue that I had was because I am a novice to JP1, I did not know how to rename the phantom buttons. Since phantom buttons are only introduced with the installation of an extender, perhaps instructions to rename them can be included in the extender manuals. This way, people that don't want them renamed aren't affected. And those that do, know how to.

I think it's easier to include them and then if people don't want to use them, they don't have to. The drawback of having users edit their RDFs, like you just did, is that you will have to re-apply the edit every time a new release of the RDFs of RMIR is issued.

Ah ok, I didn't realise. Maybe a question that could be asked is how many people actually use all the phantom buttons. With the URC 6440 extender, there are 15 and I have used 10, however 2 of these are for DiscreteOn and DiscreteOff. If very few people ever use all 15 (or however many the other extenders provide), then including DiscreteOn and DiscreteOff shouldn't negatively affect anyone.

Having said that, someone will probably come back and say they use all of them and the shifted versions too

The number of potential phantoms is usually a lot greater than the number actually included in the remote. Remember, a phantom is just a button code that is not being used.

Typically all phantoms are looked for during rdf and extender development. If a keycode. We try to utilize all the keycodes that are available. If a keycode isn't included the remote might do something internally with that keycode Changing the name to disceteon will just revert to the previous name if the rdf gets an update. One of the nice things about using disceteon in place of phantom1 is that your functions can autoassign. The button name is meaningless unless it is the same name as a physical button on the remote. On the otherhand people use my extenders will find that certain buttons are not available shifted or xshifted because the real keycodes extend into the shifted range. They think i made a mistake, alter the rdf and then can't figure out why their setup isn't woking.

Looks like the 6 people on the planet who care about this are split down the middle.

I'll only add, that if you want to keep your RDF customizations, change them to read only so they don't get overwritten when you update.

mdavej wrote:Looks like the 6 people on the planet who care about this are split down the middle.

I'll only add, that if you want to keep your RDF customizations, change them to read only so they don't get overwritten when you update.

Not so fast, I broke the tie.

I'd like to know what happened to my first post in this thread. Second one is there but first one is gone.

vickyg2003 wrote:I'd like to know what happened to my first post in this thread. Second one is there but first one is gone.

I didn't touch it, what did it say?

OK, I went ahead and voted, even though I think the poll question glosses over any distinction between extended and unextended remotes.

The Robman wrote: I didn't touch it, what did it say?

I quoted portions of 3FG's post and then typed Ditto.
I also added a big blurb about how this was a major issue back with the 8811 family was popular. Anytime the button is not on the real remote it can be confusing. I must have read those posts a dozen times trying to come to terms with what a phantom (as unused keycode) a phantom (as a button that's on the big brother) and then discreteOn and discreteOff which were just phantom unused keycodes were renamed.

I think that all phantom's that are usable under the standard shifted key threshold should be listed in the RDF, I don't care what you call them.