JP1 Remotes

In the How does RM list remotes?thread, Mark Pierson suggested that we use a standard naming convention for RDFs so that the list of remotes presented by RM and IR has some semblance of organization.

His suggestion is to always start with the full model number, and leave out the brand.

For example, we have the following RDFs for the 15-1994:
RSL6RSL0 (RS 15-1994 6-in-1 Smart).rdf
RSL6RSX0 (RS 15-1994 6-in-1 Smart Extender Learned).rdf
RSL6RSX0 (RS 15-1994 Extender with Learned).rdf
RSL6RSX3 (15-1994 extender 3).rdf
RSL6RSX3 (RS 15-1994 Extender).rdf
RSL6RSX3 (RS 15-1994 Extender3 with Selective Macro).rdf

These would be renamed as follows:

RSL6RSL0 (15-1994 6-in-1 Smart).rdf
RSL6RSX0 (15-1994 6-in-1 Smart Extender Learned).rdf
RSL6RSX0 (15-1994 Extender with Learned).rdf
RSL6RSX3 (15-1994 extender 3).rdf
RSL6RSX3 (15-1994 Extender).rdf
RSL6RSX3 (15-1994 Extender3 with Selective Macro).rdf

Another example for the 6012 remotes:

6_806_80 (URC-881x_801x_601x).rdf
6_80_2x3 (6012 x3 2K).rdf
6_80_8x3 (6012 x3 8K$1815).rdf

would become

6_806_80 (URC-881x_801x_601x).rdf
6_80_2x3 (URC-881x_801x_601x x3 2K).rdf
6_80_8x3 (URC-881x_801x_601x x3 8K$1815).rdf

Not sure how to handle the other remotes that we refer to by name instead of by model, such as Navigator, Intuitive, Balboa Dolphin, Maestro, etc.

Reactions? Other suggestions?

There has been another request that would also impact the file names.
We have a number of RDFs that actually support multiple remotes. Since RM displays an image of the remote on the Layout panel, there will inevitably be users that are confused by the fact that the image doesn't match their remote.

Rather than create a different RDF for each remote, it was suggested that we put information in the RDF name to help RM understand that the RDF supports multiple remotes, and what those are. We use the RDF name because we don't want to have to actually open and read the RDF files to figure this out.

The proposal is to surround the part of the name that is unique to each remote with square brackets, so instead of
6_806_80 (URC-881x_801x_601x).rdf
we would have
6_806_80 (URC-[881x][801x][601x]).rdf

This would tell RM (and possibly IR) that the RDF represents 3 different remotes, with the names
URC-881x
URC-801x
URC-601x

RM would present these remotes to the user individually, so the user wouldn't be aware that they share the same RDF.

Inside the RDF, rather than a single image being specified, there would be a list of images. The list of images would be of the same length and in same order as the remote names in the file name, so RM would know which image to use based on which name the user selects.

I don't see that changing simply changing the name will cause any functional problems with IR, but it will cause inconsistency between IR and RM if IR doesn't change to present the remotes individually as well.

One application would show a single remote with a name that indicates it corresponds to many, while the other will show many individual remotes.
This could cause some confusion to some users, especially novices.

Reactions or thoughts?

gfb107 wrote:Not sure how to handle the other remotes that we refer to by name instead of by model, such as Navigator, Intuitive, Balboa Dolphin, Maestro, etc.

Just use the name, and append the model # if known (i.e. "Navigator URC-43000").

FYI, in KM Rob and I decided to list remotes in sub-groups: first all the RS remotes, then all the URC's, and finally the others. The 3 sub-groups are alpha sorted.

I'm not suggesting that RM follow suit, just pointing out why the KM list isn't a true alpha sort.

Part of the problems you're surmising probably wouldn't come up anyway. Let's face real-life facts. The first thing any novice or JP-1er should do is download his configuration and save it. IR will tell him which remote he has in 99% of the cases. If IR and KM and RM all use common names between them, then he should be able to carry this info from one application to the other. We PREACH that before you make and install an upgrade to first save your current configuration. IR will BLAIR the remote's name in the title bar as soon as he downloads his remote.

One of your other points: The Millenium 4 isn't labelled "Millenium 4" anywhere on the remote, not even internally. Without going to OFA's site, or having a manual, a user would have no idea that the remote he's holding is a Mill4. Typically, a OFA remote has a "URC#" on the battery cover. Not so with some, like the Mill4. However, on the pcb, and SOMETIMES(Only with the B04), you mite find 48xxx someplace. The intuitive I "think" is the same way. It's a urc-31xxx. I'm not sure about the various "Navigator" models.

I'd propose that The MIllenium 4 rdfs be called: Millenium 4 (URC-48xxxB00) and Millenium 4 (URC-48xxxB01/B04) (or B01_B04) The key point is the RM or KM "remote name" should mirror what IR shows in the title bar. It sure beats using the signature name MILOMILO, where the user has to know that that derives from the 3rd to 10th bytes in ascii format from the hex.

Jim

I vote to keep the brand name in the name, so in the lis of RS models the only one that would need to change would be the one without the "RS" in the name.

For the One For Alls, we could either leave them "as is" as we all know that URC- is the OFA prefix, or we could add "OFA" in there.

As for the multitude of other remotes, if the desire is to group them together the way we did in KM, you could prefix them with "OEM"

Just suggestions, I'm not firm one way or the other.

jamesgammel wrote:If IR and KM and RM all use common names between them, then he should be able to carry this info from one application to the other. We PREACH that before you make and install an upgrade to first save your current configuration. IR will BLAIR the remote's name in the title bar as soon as he downloads his remote.

This is one place where RM and IR differ.

RM gets the remote name from the RDF file name. This is the name that shows up in the drop down box where the user chooses his remote. RM gets it from the file name so that it doesn't have to parse ALL the RDFs inorder to build the list of remotes to choose from. RM only parses the RDF once the user chooses a remote. Changing the remote name at that point would be confusing, IMO

IR shows 2 different remote names:

If you do File->New->Select... it shows you a list of remotes using the entire RDF file name, including the signature.

However, once you select a remote, it uses the value from the Name= field INSIDE the RDF. It can use this name because at this point the RDF must be parsed anyway. This file name and the Name= field are sometimes different.

One reason for using the Name= field instead of the file name is that the Name= field allows characters that can not be used in a file name such as /. The file names USUALLY use _ instead.

As part of the standardization, we can go through and make sure that the internal Name= and the file name match more closely. We could even establish a convention that _ in the file name should be replaced with / for display purposes.

jamesgammel wrote:One of your other points: The Millenium 4 isn't labelled "Millenium 4" anywhere on the remote, not even internally. Without going to OFA's site, or having a manual, a user would have no idea that the remote he's holding is a Mill4. Typically, a OFA remote has a "URC#" on the battery cover. Not so with some, like the Mill4. However, on the pcb, and SOMETIMES(Only with the B04), you mite find 48xxx someplace. The intuitive I "think" is the same way. It's a urc-31xxx. I'm not sure about the various "Navigator" models.

The Navigators usually have a label somewhere on the back with the URC number on it. The Atlas DVR, however, has no identifying numbers anywhere on it or in it's manual. The only place it mentions Atlas is in the manual.

gfb107 wrote:If you do File->New->Select... it shows you a list of remotes using the entire RDF file name, including the signature.

I does allow you to sort the list by signature or by the remote-name part of the file name. It wouldn't be a big change in logic to only display the signature part when that sort option is chosen.

One that i know of off-hand that needs "fixed" is the S0-called Cinema 7 (7800) rdf. It's also applicable to the 6800, but the user never sees that unless he examines the signature, then has to know that both have the same signature. I know when i first downloaded my 6800 in IR, it sure threw me back a loop when IR displayed just Cinema 7 in the title bar, when the remote clearly is labelled Cinema 6, and urc-6800 on the battery cover. In terms of thoroughness, and clarity for newbies, this should get "fixed" as well.

For me, I don't see using _ or / or even | any more or less confusing than any of the other choices. In my Mill4 example, the important thing to know is that BOTH the B01 and B04 use the same rdf, and it's a different one than the B00 requires. Whichever configuration will easily work in both IR and RM (or KM) should be fine.

I don't know if Nil's was planning on including an image for the 6800 or not, but the "Cinema 6" on the 6800 is pretty prominant and *may* confuse a newbie if he doesn't see that when he views the layout panel in RM. If he does add that image, then I'd imagine the | convention will be needed like with the 601x, et al. series.

Jim

I know this is an old thread but I thought it was a good idea to wake it up and report that all RDF's have been renamed as decided by this and another thread.

Additionally, all RDF's that support multiple remotes like the 7800/6800, the 8880x/801x/601x, and a few others have been updated to display the appropriate image/map for the selected remote in RM.

If I have missed any please let me know.

Also, if anyone has a better image than any that are in the distribution please send them to me.

First off, a big THANK YOU to Nils for all his efforts on not only the RDF's, but the images and maps as well.

Nils_Ekberg wrote:Also, if anyone has a better image than any that are in the distribution please send them to me.

I haven't really checked this in a while, but are you still using that "generic" image for any of the remotes? If so, and if I recall correctly, using the image of a Kameleon is probably NOT a good idea. I think something more like the 8810 would be better. I say this because the Kameleon's "virtual keypad" might be more confusing to newbies with hard button remotes. My choice of the 8810 is simply based on it having the most physical buttons of any of the mainstream remotes.

Just some food for thought...

I actually have the Generic image down to the 2107, 2133, 8060 for those on the soft side and only missing an image for one hard button remote, the SC Explorer.

I agree, that the Kameleon as a generic is not necessarily a good choice. Not sure what I was thinking when I picked it. I remember, during a weak moment I was thinking of buying one.

Wouldn't take much at this point to use the 8810 image for the generic or atleast a Generic2 for the SC Explorer and keep the soft generic for the others 3.

Greg and I have not quite figured out a way to do the dynamic screens for the soft remotes yet so I have not spent a lot of time on them and left them generic for now.

Nils_Ekberg wrote: Additionally, all RDF's that support multiple remotes like the 7800/6800, the 8880x/801x/601x, and a few others have been updated to display the appropriate image/map for the selected remote in RM.

If I have missed any please let me know.

URC-7550 and URC-7552

damir wrote:

Nils_Ekberg wrote: Additionally, all RDF's that support multiple remotes like the 7800/6800, the 8880x/801x/601x, and a few others have been updated to display the appropriate image/map for the selected remote in RM.

If I have missed any please let me know.

URC-7550 and URC-7552

What RDF is used for the 7552? Is it the 7650 RDF?

What RDF is used for the 7552? Is it the 7650 RDF?

There are three versions:
Black URC-7550 signature EBV0EBV0
Black URC-7550 signature EBV0EBV1
Silver URC-7552 signature EBV0EBV1

damir wrote:

What RDF is used for the 7552? Is it the 7650 RDF?

There are three versions:
Black URC-7550 signature EBV0EBV0
Black URC-7550 signature EBV0EBV1
Silver URC-7552 signature EBV0EBV1

Thanks, I knew the 7550 worked with those RDF's just wanted to make sure the 7552 works also. I will expand the RDF to make the 7550 and 7552 available as choices in RM and in the name so others know.