Updated RDF's Maps, and Images Version 1.28

unclemiltie · Post by **unclemiltie** » Sat Mar 08, 2008 12:24 pm

Making an RDF for a new remote is actually quite difficult and requires help from a number of the experts in this forum.

First you have to figure out where stuff is stored in the remote. This is generally done by downloading the remote after adding macros, keymoves, etc and trying to find what changed.

Second, once you have that, then you have to find the key values for each key. This is generally done by creating lots of macros and then reading them out in IR, and then compiling the list of items.

Third, comes the hard stuff that the experts have to figure out. The key lists for each device type, the list of protocols, the list of items in the digit tables, and other things are not trivial to get. Even with a LOT of knowledge, it's still hard to do. (for example, some protocols have a number of variants and the list of protocols in the RDF has to describe the right one)

It's not for the faint of heart, and in fact, I've never been able to truly complete one and have written a number of JP1 extenders (and am working on a JP1.3 extender)

friday · Post by **friday** » Sun Nov 30, 2008 11:42 am

i think there is a problem with Dreambox v4 urc-39930 and RM. please take a look.
there are 8 buttons at the bottom. (red, green, yell. blue,....) some are double-assigned when i do it over the "layout" . e.g (red=6, green=7, yell=8, blue=9, tv=0). when i assign them over the "buttons" menu, the funtions are ok but the picture shows still false.

is this a generaly problem of this remote?

friday

Post by **ElizabethD** » Wed Apr 15, 2009 9:15 pm

oops!
Looks like 7800 extender 5 rdf is missing

Signature C7L0X7L5.
File was in the 1.26 distribution.

Nils_Ekberg · Post by **Nils_Ekberg** » Thu Apr 16, 2009 6:09 am

I can fix that Liz. Will be in the next release

Post by **ElizabethD** » Thu Apr 16, 2009 5:45 pm

Thanks, Nils.
Now here comes another. RC1 of IRv8 may not be doing it right for 6131 extended. Note this post
http://www.hifi-remote.com/forums/viewt ... 2752#72752
I'll await the answer there, but perhaps change will be needed here as well.

Post by **ElizabethD** » Fri Apr 17, 2009 11:59 am

Nils, 6131extender also needs change for IRv8
Signature is PVR0PVx1
[SpecialProtocols]
DSM=TV/1103:-01FC

gfb107 · Post by **gfb107** » Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:14 pm

I think that also applies to Atlas SA_7

Post by **ElizabethD** » Fri Apr 17, 2009 1:57 pm

I would think so. Also I'm not sure if the 1K extenders should have it.
In 1K the special protocols are in separate files, so people who have no room can pick just the protocols they want. Perhaps Mike can answer that.

Post by **ElizabethD** » Fri Apr 17, 2009 2:57 pm

There is a 6131 extender2 beta, I just learned.
Has few interesting features.
Also has remapped some keys, causing, I think, all X_device things offset.
The RDF for this extender is in the zip file.
http://www.hifi-remote.com/forums/dload ... le_id=5757
Perhaps this file could be added as well.

mr_d_p_gumby · Post by **mr_d_p_gumby** » Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:52 pm

ElizabethD wrote:I would think so. Also I'm not sure if the 1K extenders should have it.
In 1K the special protocols are in separate files, so people who have no room can pick just the protocols they want. Perhaps Mike can answer that.

The 1K extenders should have the entry in the RDF for DSM because the DSM functionality is built-in and does not actually require a device or protocol upgrade.

gfb107 · Post by **gfb107** » Thu Apr 23, 2009 7:34 am

RDF updates are also needed to deal with the new variant names of PID 0161.
See http://www.hifi-remote.com/forums/viewt ... 5654#75654

WagonMaster · Post by **WagonMaster** » Tue Nov 17, 2009 4:21 pm

As I think everyone here knows, I've taken over the RDF/map/image maintainership from Nils Ekberg.

In reading through this thread, attempting to find anything that may have been unaddressed, I see various comments about changing the "DSM=" line in the "[SpecialProtocols]" section of various RDFs.

Furthermore, I see that the RDFs that Nils emailed me do not have any of the changes suggested for that field.

So before I change anything, I want to hear some feedback on what should be done.

It sounds like this line:

Code: Select all

DSM=TV/1103:-01FC

should be present in all of the following (both 1KB and 2KB) URC-6131 extender RDFs:

PVR01Kx1 (URC-6131(Old)_6131nwB00 PVR Remote Extender1 1K).rdf
PVR0PVx1 (URC-6131(Old)_6131nwB00 PVR Remote Extender1 2K).rdf
PVR0PVx2 (URC-6131(Old)_6131nwB00 PVR Remote Extender2 2K).rdf

Is this correct?

Currently, all of those RDFs use just this:

Code: Select all

DSM=01FC

Liz, note that I've already added the RDF for the URC-6131 Extender 2 beta you referred to.

There's also a reference to doing something similar to the "Atlas SA_7" RDF. But it's not clear to me if (for the 'SA_71Kx1 (Atlas 5 URC-1054 1K Extender 1).rdf' RDF file) that means using this (device/setup code and leading minus sign):

Code: Select all

DSM=TV/1103:-01FC

or simply this (just the leading minus sign):

Code: Select all

DSM=-01FC

I won't do anything to the RDFs unless I hear someone confirm the proper changes.

Bill

mr_d_p_gumby · Post by **mr_d_p_gumby** » Tue Nov 17, 2009 8:32 pm

WagonMaster wrote:I won't do anything to the RDFs unless I hear someone confirm the proper changes.

The SA_71Kx1 Atlas extender works the same way as the URC-6131 extender, and needs the same entries in the RDF for the DSM. In both cases it is built into the extender, and has no device or protocol upgrade.

WagonMaster · Post by **WagonMaster** » Tue Nov 17, 2009 8:52 pm

OK, so just to be crystal clear: This line:

Code: Select all

DSM=TV/1103:-01FC

will be added to all 4 of the RDFs I mentioned in my previous post.

Thanks for the confirmation, Mike.

Bill

Capn Trips · Post by **Capn Trips** » Sat Jan 09, 2010 8:46 pm

WagonMaster,

Is this release imminent?

I just took a look, and although there seems to have been movement on the 1.29 release over the months, the months keep ticking by, and the "current" 1.28 release dates back almost 2 years!

(although it's hard to say, really, since the first post in this thread says January 2008, and the "last updated" entry for the file says Apr 2009)

Not nagging, just asking.