Current RDF Files

Nils_Ekberg · Post by **Nils_Ekberg** » Wed Oct 15, 2003 8:47 am

The following links lead to the current version (V 1.01) of all RDF's.

NOTE: Make sure you select the correct set for you situation.

These RDF's are compliant with both IR.EXE and RemoteMaster (RM)

All RDF's for both IR.EXE and RemoteMaster

These RDF's are for RemoteMaster (RM) ONLY and are NOT compliant with the current version of IR.EXE.

All RDF's for RemoteMaster ONLY

Nils_Ekberg · Post by **Nils_Ekberg** » Wed Oct 15, 2003 10:11 am

Just a follow on to the above post:

You can take advantage of the current enhancements in RM by:

1) Placing the IRE.EXE compatible RDF's in the folder with IR.EXE.
2) Placing the RM ONLY RDF's in a sub folder like RDF and point to them in RM by placing the following line in the RemoteMaster.properties file ==>>RDFPath=C\:\\JP1\\RDF

You can infact have IR.EXE, KM, and RM in the same folder. IR requires RDF's in the same folder but RM can call them from a different folder.

The primary enhancement in RM that currently makes the RDF's incompatible with IR.EXE is Generic button names. With Generic button names you can import a KM upgrade into RM and it will assign the majority of the functions to buttons. You can also switch remotes for an upgrade to another remote with minimal lose of button assignments.

cdhixson · Post by **cdhixson** » Mon Oct 20, 2003 8:45 am

Nils,

I've uploaded an rdf file for the RS 15-1994 extender 5 that is compatible with the current version of IR. I put it in the JP1-KM / RM Upated images and maps file area. It isn't really different than the rdf file that comes in the zip file for extender 5. I thought you should include it in your rdf file distribution.

Nils_Ekberg · Post by **Nils_Ekberg** » Mon Oct 20, 2003 9:54 am

Chris

The big differences I see between the one you gave me last week and this new one is the the older one had Shift=$80, Shift and
XShift=$C0, XShift in the [General] and the new one doesen't. You also added the xs_ buttons but that is no big deal either. So, my only question is do I need to add the 2 lines in the [General] section or were they removed for a reason?
RM and the not-yet-released IR use the Shift= and XShift= to figure out if the remote supports xshifted keys, and what the bit masks are. Using XShift= makes it unnecessary to define all the xs-keys, since RM and IR will allow assigning xshift functions to the base keys. In order to have support xshifted keys in the exsiting IR, the RDF must specify every one of them.

So the current IR doesn't support the Shift= and XShift=, and requires all the xs-keys. Having the Shift= and XSHift= should not cause any problems, though.

Post by **The Robman** » Mon Oct 20, 2003 10:09 am

In my ongoing effort to try and keep this RDF mess under control, could I ask that the long standing "RDF Folder" in the main JP1 Yahoo file section be used as the storing place for new or updated RDFs. It's the ONLY place where I look to see if there are updates.

cdhixson · Post by **cdhixson** » Mon Oct 20, 2003 10:42 am

Nils_Ekberg wrote:Chris

The big differences I see between the one you gave me last week and this new one is the the older one had Shift=$80, Shift and
XShift=$C0, XShift in the [General] and the new one doesen't. You also added the xs_ buttons but that is no big deal either. So, my only question is do I need to add the 2 lines in the [General] section or were they removed for a reason?
RM and the not-yet-released IR use the Shift= and XShift= to figure out if the remote supports xshifted keys, and what the bit masks are. Using XShift= makes it unnecessary to define all the xs-keys, since RM and IR will allow assigning xshift functions to the base keys. In order to have support xshifted keys in the exsiting IR, the RDF must specify every one of them.

So the current IR doesn't support the Shift= and XShift=, and requires all the xs-keys. Having the Shift= and XSHift= should not cause any problems, though.

You can add those lines if you want to, but like you said, it won't make a difference to the current IR version. This is just a temporary situation until the new version of IR is released. Then you can use the rdf file from the RM compatible version. The only reason I sent this file to be included is that the extender 5 version of the rdf file has never been included with any version of IR. It was only found in the extender zip file itself.

Nils_Ekberg · Post by **Nils_Ekberg** » Mon Oct 20, 2003 10:42 am

The Robman wrote:In my ongoing effort to try and keep this RDF mess under control, could I ask that the long standing "RDF Folder" in the main JP1 Yahoo file section be used as the storing place for new or updated RDFs. It's the ONLY place where I look to see if there are updates.

Rob, I believe Chris was trying to make sure I got to place it in the main group ZIP file after review so we don't have multiple versions floating around. It is bad enough we have a current set for IR and a set for RM only. When the new version of IR comes out we will be down to one ZIP file and hopefully all RDF's will be in it and only experimental RDF's will need to remain in the folder.

Also, do you know how I answered myself in the post above yours? My post stopped at "So, my only question is do I need to add the 2 lines in the [General] section or were they removed for a reason?" Then an answer appeared in the same note.

Nils_Ekberg · Post by **Nils_Ekberg** » Mon Oct 20, 2003 10:43 am

cdhixson wrote:
Nils_Ekberg wrote:Chris

The big differences I see between the one you gave me last week and this new one is the the older one had Shift=$80, Shift and
XShift=$C0, XShift in the [General] and the new one doesen't. You also added the xs_ buttons but that is no big deal either. So, my only question is do I need to add the 2 lines in the [General] section or were they removed for a reason?
RM and the not-yet-released IR use the Shift= and XShift= to figure out if the remote supports xshifted keys, and what the bit masks are. Using XShift= makes it unnecessary to define all the xs-keys, since RM and IR will allow assigning xshift functions to the base keys. In order to have support xshifted keys in the exsiting IR, the RDF must specify every one of them.

So the current IR doesn't support the Shift= and XShift=, and requires all the xs-keys. Having the Shift= and XSHift= should not cause any problems, though.
You can add those lines if you want to, but like you said, it won't make a difference to the current IR version. This is just a temporary situation until the new version of IR is released. Then you can use the rdf file from the RM compatible version. The only reason I sent this file to be included is that the extender 5 version of the rdf file has never been included with any version of IR. It was only found in the extender zip file itself.

OK will do

cdhixson · Post by **cdhixson** » Mon Oct 20, 2003 10:47 am

Nils_Ekberg wrote:Also, do you know how I answered myself in the post above yours? My post stopped at "So, my only question is do I need to add the 2 lines in the [General] section or were they removed for a reason?" Then an answer appeared in the same note.

I was confused by your question that was followed by the answer. Did someone edit your post after you submitted?

gfb107 · Post by **gfb107** » Mon Oct 20, 2003 10:52 am

Nils_Ekberg wrote:Also, do you know how I answered myself in the post above yours? My post stopped at "So, my only question is do I need to add the 2 lines in the [General] section or were they removed for a reason?" Then an answer appeared in the same note.

I think I did that. I must have pushed the Edit button when I meant to push the Quote button. Sorry.

Nils_Ekberg · Post by **Nils_Ekberg** » Mon Oct 20, 2003 11:01 am

gfb107 wrote:
Nils_Ekberg wrote:Also, do you know how I answered myself in the post above yours? My post stopped at "So, my only question is do I need to add the 2 lines in the [General] section or were they removed for a reason?" Then an answer appeared in the same note.
I think I did that. I must have pushed the Edit button when I meant to push the Quote button. Sorry.

That's OK. I felt good about my answer, undestood it, and actually believe I knew the answer but needed to verify.