DiscreteON/OFF phantom buttons in RDFs

[The Robman]

This thread has been split from the RMIR thread. The question at hand is, should RDFs include phantom buttons, as these buttons do not really exist on the remote, and should 2 of these phantom buttons be labeled as DiscreteON and DiscreteOFF. Most RDFs already have these, but some do not. A further question is, should it be up to each RDF author to decide whether to include them, or should we try to go for consistency across all RDFs.

And even if you're against phantoms, do you feel it should be up to the end user whether they want to use them, or are you in favor of trying to prevent them from using them by excluding them from the RDFs, forcing each user to edit their own copy of an RDF if they want to use them?

Graham, who's in charge of the RDFs now? JezW noticed that there weren't any DiscreteON or DiscreteOFF buttons in the RDF for the URC-6440 extender, so we helped him rename some of the phantom buttons, but I think it would be a good idea to add them to the official RDF.

[mathdon]

Graham, who's in charge of the RDFs now? JezW noticed that there weren't any DiscreteON or DiscreteOFF buttons in the RDF for the URC-6440 extender, so we helped him rename some of the phantom buttons, but I think it would be a good idea to add them to the official RDF.

I don't agree with this change. There are no DiscreteON and DiscreteOFF buttons on the remote. These are functions, not buttons, and you can give functions any name you like. Jez had a problem that when he downloaded the remote, he lost these names. Of course you do, function names are not stored in the remote. He needs to save his setup as a .rmir file, like any other remote, as that keeps all custom function names. We can't go around re-naming phantom buttons to suit one person's use of them.

The answer to your question, though, is that 3FG is in charge of RDFs except that I regard extender writers as retaining the right to update the ones for their own extenders.

[The Robman]

Well, most of the other RDFs include phantom buttons labeled DiscreteON and DiscreteOFF, so I just think it would be nice for these RDFs to be consistent. If your argument is that there are no DiscreteON buttons on the remote, how do you justify including Phantom01 for example, as there are no phantom buttons on the remote either? I'm just curious.

[mathdon]

If 3FG agrees with you, I am not going to object to him making the change you suggest. I regard PhantomXX as a wild-card name that does not mean anything, and so can be used for anything of the user's choice. A specific name is limiting possible uses. If Phantom1 is re-named as DiscreteON, I shall have to change my setup to use a different phantom button, as this is not what it is used for. But I suppose there are lots of phantom buttons, so it is no big deal, and I suspect I may be the only JP1'er who doesn't use discretes in their setups.

[mdavej]

This is my fault. Years ago when we started running into remotes with large numbers of phantoms, I started reserving a couple for DiscreteON and DiscreteOFF and putting those names in the RDFs. I figured most people used a couple of phantoms for those functions anyway, so what would be the harm. I agree some may not use them, and it could be confusing. But phantom is a somewhat arbitrary name to begin with, and there are plenty of them.

So in this case, it's not really a change to suit one person's need. His need just happened to match a precedent that I accidentally set years ago. It didn't meet with much resistance then, so I kept doing it in subsequent RDFs. If he'd wanted to name them PictureMode1 and PictureMode2, I'd agree those don't belong in the RDF. But DiscreteON and OFF can potentially apply to any device and is probably the most common use of phantoms for functions (keymoves).

I vote to make the change.

[tranx]

In Uk with URC-6440s and OARUSB04G for our nine IR-controlled devices, there is not one working set of discrete Power functions available, so we don't need to use, or to rename, phantom buttons for discrete Power functions either.

[The Robman]

Me too, I found having them very useful when I started setting up my Toadtogs.

[mdavej]

Since such a change affects users like Tranx, I'll add that I tried to use the highest numbered phantoms so it wouldn't affect those who had no need for them. They would likely use only the lower numbered phantoms for their own purposes and ignore my DiscreteON/OFF ones.

[mathdon]

Since such a change affects users like Tranx, I'll add that I tried to use the highest numbered phantoms so it wouldn't affect those who had no need for them. They would likely use only the lower numbered phantoms for their own purposes and ignore my DiscreteON/OFF ones.

If high-numbered ones are re-named, I have no objection - though, along with Tranx, I have no use for them.

I wonder if this is a Europe/US split. Although there seems to be no reason in principle why US and European equipment or users should differ in their use of IR control, in practice they seem to differ widely.

[mdavej]

If high-numbered ones are re-named, I have no objection - though, along with Tranx, I have no use for them.

Thanks. I think that's a good compromise.

I wonder if this is a Europe/US split. Although there seems to be no reason in principle why US and European equipment or users should differ in their use of IR control, in practice they seem to differ widely.

I would expect discretes to be worldwide. If you and Tranx are interested, list some of your brands, and perhaps we can find some codes for you. Unlike toadtogs, they never get out of sync, which is why I go to great lengths to find them.

While none of my devices have discretes on their original remotes, all respond to discrete commands.

[tranx]

...I wonder if this is a Europe/US split. Although there seems to be no reason in principle why US and European equipment or users should differ in their use of IR control, in practice they seem to differ widely.

Yes I think so. For UK equipment there seem to be plenty of reliable Input discrete functions but hardly any effective Power Discretes.
It could be a chicken and egg situation where, in US, a higher proportion of consumers might traditionally have been using programmable remotes.

(e.g. for UK)

Humax, Sat and Terrestrial PVRs
Samsung Tv (PowerOn and PowerOff are in some upgrades but don't work our Tv)
Sony Tv (ditto)
Panasonic, (a couple of older 'DMR' recorders use the same protocols and OBCs as the next box below)
Panasonic BTT-370 Home Theatre (for which I understand much Input-discrete-searching has failed worldwide)
MXV Android Media Box
A couple of different Roberts IR radios
(lime switches can only learn one IR command)

[The Robman]

In Uk with URC-6440s and OARUSB04G for our nine IR-controlled devices, there is not one working set of discrete Power functions available, so we don't need to use, or to rename, phantom buttons for discrete Power functions either.

It's not a question of whether you have discrete power codes or not, it's a question of whether you want to program discrete power codes, either using discrete codes or Toadtogs. If you don't have a need to use discrete codes, then having phantom buttons available that you don't use shouldn't be an issue.

In my case, I used the DiscreteON/OFF phantoms to hold my virtual discrete codes created using ToadTog.

The reason I noticed that they were missing from the URC-6440 RDF is because JezW asked how I was able to use them when he couldn't. He was programming a Toadtog to generate a discrete code for his TOAD Amp. He's in the UK and I'm in the US.

[tranx]

Yes I see that and suppose it would not be a big deal anyway, but it was a bit confusing with Insignia-67100 and Inteset-422 which have some variously labelled phantom buttons,
while some of those do have built in functions and might seem to be 'pseudo-phantoms'.

So there might just be a few more phantoms which may or may not have their own native or appropriate functions, and a few less in the majority which don't.

[mdavej]

There are many older remotes with pseudo-phantoms too. Years ago, Vicky suggested naming them according to their built-in function, which was a good suggestion. But I ultimately decided against it in my RDFs.

I completely forgot about the aspect that Rob mentioned, but I would think that anyone who uses toadtog would have at least a few for the purpose of Discrete On and Off.

[3FG]

I am strongly opposed to the suggested change to the RDF. In my view the Remote Definition File (RDF) is just that: it is intended to describe the firmware and physical characteristics of the remote. The RDF file lists all of the button numbers to which the remote can respond. For each button number which corresponds to a physical button, we list the button label. Device button numbers which don't have a physical button are listed in the RDF as e.g. dev7. Other button numbers which have no physical buttons are labeled as phantoms. This is not an arbitrary name--it is a description of the way the remote has been designed. If a phantom is instead listed as e.g. "Discrete On", a user has no way to know that this button code is a phantom. True, an experienced user can guess that these are phantoms, since few UEI remotes actually have physical buttons with these labels, but it is confusing. I hope no one wants to extend the idea to renaming e.g. dev3 in a Comcast remote to Audio, even though I suppose that most people using dev3 in that remote do use it for Audio.

I know this practice is confusing, because I bought a 15-133 some years ago when I was first using JP1. It is one of the few unextended RDF files which has phantoms labeled as Discrete On and Off, and I wasted a fair amount of time trying find how to access these non-existent buttons.

When I recently cleaned up the development RDF folder, I moved a number of files to the diagnostic area because the files were obsolete, or in the standard RDF distribution etc. However, I did just completely delete one file, which was a map file that carried renaming the pahntom buttons one step further-- it reassigned one physical button (evidently the submitter's choice of a suitable button to use for Discrete Off) to be shown as "Discrete Off" on the Buttons tab, instead of the actual label.

Fundamentally I'm opposed to renaming phantooms because the practice is not scalable and because it obscures the actual characteristics of the remote. It's just not good systems design.