Good question. I do not know if the search feature uses any arguments or conditional expressions.underquark wrote:Does the '-' character cause the search to look for files containing 'HT' but NOT 'SS360'?
someone cleverer than me on another forum wrote:phpBB3.0.7-PL1 does interpret every minus as an operator, no matter if words are in quotes. This way it is not possible to get the right results when searching "Anne-Sophie", because phpBB3 always turns Anne into an inclusive and Sophie into an exclusive. However, if you have MySQL version 5 or later chances are high you can get your expected search results by saying "Anne.Sophie" instead (also with quotation marks, of course).
Thanks this does a better job for my needs. I can use wget to pull the results from, "http://www.google.com/search?q={$1}+sit ... /dload.php" instead of having to mangle the search terms. Though I still do think the current implementation is broken. Especially for a new user who may not be aware of these caveats and idiosyncrasies.3FG wrote:Two things: 1) Why not use the ordinary search (which does a site-specific Google search) instead of File Search, but replace site:hifi-remote.com/forums with site:http://www.hifi-remote.com/forums/dload.php? Searching on HT-SS360 Sony gives 7 matches. Searching on SS360 alone gives 8.
Yeah, I'm sorry. I tend to not be aware of the minor categories. And usually, I don't even know what the type of box it is. But, I'll do my best to make sure it is appropriately categorized in the future.3FG wrote:2) We have a file section called Combo Audio Systems, and now that I know what this unit is, I think that is where this particular upgrade should go, rather than Audio. BTW, in case the thought arises, I don't think we should have an upgrade duplicated in two sections. In other words, resist the temptation to put the upgrade in both Audio and Combo Audio Systems.
Wait a sec, I thought the EFC values were based off of the protocol. Because when I change the setup codes in RM, it never alters the EFC values. However, if I change the protocol it does. I do realize that the you need the correct setup code to associate these EFCs with the correct protocol parameters. Technically, they would have useful EFCs just not a useful setup code. And why am I being singled out for this? Alan Richey always uses 2010 as his signature setup code, so I thought 2013 would be mine. lol3FG wrote:One other thing and not web site related, but I'll bring it up here anyway: We now have 4 upgrade files all called HT-SS360. I uploaded one, which is similar to the 3 that you have uploaded. Why did I upload one? Because the only folks who can conveniently use the other upgrades are those who have a cable. People who have newer UEI remotes, but would like to use manual entry (using setup code Audio 2172) would have to know a lot about the 0027 executor in order to come up with useful EFCs.
Trust me. I would definitely love to have only one upgrade per unit. But, I'm not entirely sure the current implementation nor mindset makes it feasible.3FG wrote:I would like to whittle the upgrades down to just one, and I think it should be one with fixed data that matches a UEI setup code. Actually as a general principle, we should prefer upgrades that correspond to official protocols and fixed data, whenever we can.
That is very interesting. And I've tested it out. It gives a lot of results but doesn't work as expected though. As it still provides more results than what it should. Still it is nice to know that "-" is excluding expression.underquark wrote:Looks like the minus sign acting as a search term excluder is a feature after all..
someone cleverer than me on another forum wrote:phpBB3.0.7-PL1 does interpret every minus as an operator, no matter if words are in quotes. This way it is not possible to get the right results when searching "Anne-Sophie", because phpBB3 always turns Anne into an inclusive and Sophie into an exclusive. However, if you have MySQL version 5 or later chances are high you can get your expected search results by saying "Anne.Sophie" instead (also with quotation marks, of course).
I don't think I have the authority to move files around; even if I do; I don't know how. Anyway, referring to the original thread, it didn't occur to me that I would need to-- I expected that you would either change your links to the upgrade that I posted, or you would redo your upgrade, and then I would edit my post and delete my upgrade.eferz wrote: For example, compounding the issue by adding your own version isn't going to help us get to that goal. Of all the people here, I would assume you have moderator access to the File Section, and wonder why you didn't just change the setup code and update the description of one files and deleted the duplicates? It's not like I don't supply backlinks to the threads which they were created for. So, broken links can be adjusted.
If you can see the [Edit][x] button in the upper-right hand side of the the files description page you have the access to delete, edit, move, or even replace files. To move a file, click on the [Edit] button then select a new category from the drop down box and select [Edit File]. This will move the file accordingly.3FG wrote:I don't think I have the authority to move files around; even if I do; I don't know how.
Thank you for explaining this. I have not used a single EFC code ever. I'm probably just spoiled since Slingboxes could be changed via IP, Furthermore, I'm probably one of the few people that bought the IR Widget and Cable BEFORE having a JP1 handheld remote. And actually, I wasn't even aware the order of the protocol parameters was important. Now that I've played with transposing the parameters, I do see what you mean.3FG wrote:See, you're contributing a lot here (and pretty doggone often too!), so I assumed that you're familiar with the issues associated with manually entering EFCs. However, the focus in the above post on setup codes, as opposed to fixed data, suggests that you probably haven't done much of that. So I guess it wasn't obvious to you that the way your upgrade was constructed would actually do the original poster (who apparently does not have a JP1.3 cable) a disservice--the EFCs in that upgrade won't work for manual entry in any remote made today. And anyone else arriving at the thread looking for EFCs for manual entry will also be disappointed with an upgrade which sets subdevice1 to 8 and subdevice2 to 40.
So at the risk of repeating what you already know:
You are quite right that the setup code in an upgrade has no effect on EFCs-or anything else, as long as it isn't a duplicate. But changing the order in which the subdevices are entered will change the EFCs, since part of the EFC (2 bits in this case) is used to select which subdevice will be used for a given button. When we make an upgrade and upload it from a computer, any subdevice order will work, since our tools will make everything self consistent.
A user without a cable is in a different situation. He has no control over the order of the subdevices, or even if the necessary subdevices are built in to the remote. All he can do is choose a setup code, and accept the executor and fixed data that is built in.
Sony 16.8 is only available as a built in IR protocol in any UEI remote by using setup code Audio 2172. The user has to work with this order: subdevice1 = 250, sub2 = 11, sub3= 40, and sub4 = 8. If he assigns Audio 2172 and then uses EFCs from an upgrade which puts sub1 = 8, the IR signals that are sent will have the correct OBC, but with subdevice 250. The selector bits only indicate the subdevice index, and not the actual value.
3FG wrote:Anyway, referring to the original thread, it didn't occur to me that I would need to-- I expected that you would either change your links to the upgrade that I posted, or you would redo your upgrade, and then I would edit my post and delete my upgrade.
Sorry about that. Somehow, I completely missed your point of the setup codes but made the appropriate changes which you suggested for 4 to 40. I've fixed it all now though. Now there is only one ICT and RMDU file for the HT-SS360 that encapsulates all the changes you made.3FG wrote:In my opinion, we as a community should try to make our upgrades also useful to users who don't have cables. Maybe I'm just projecting my own experience, but I started using manual entry, became convinced that this offered a lot of flexibility, and decided the cost of an interface cable was justified. Without having successfully used manual entry of EFCs, there is no way I would have sprung for a cable, because I wouldn't have understood the value of it.
That's why I think that we should try to make our upgrades conform to official executors and values of the fixed data whenever we can. And after I went to the trouble to recast your upgrade so that it would be useful for manual entry, I just assumed that you would re-link to that one, or recast your upgrade in the same way.
Anyway, I don't care whose upgrade survives or what setup code it carries. I do care that it be be constructed with the order of subdevices matching that of audio 2172.