Keymap Master or Remote Master?

[Wheelie4]

I'm new here and to this JP1 stuff. I'm thinking of getting a UFO 8910 or 9910 for discretes to accompany my HTM MX-800 and as a backup. So I dcided to downloaded IR.exe, a few upgrade device.txt files, the RDF.zip along with both Keymap Master and Remote Master and started tinkering with them all yesterday.

Which is best to use, Keymap Master or Remote Master? I like how RemoteMaster seams a bit more intuitive and user friendly but when opening a X-10 Hacked.txt file in RM I got a message that The Protocol "Manual Setting" (13) is not compatable with the selected remote. This upgrade will NOT function correctly, please choose another protocol. I'm using the RDF URC-9910 Extender 1. Is this a compatability issue with RM not yet worked out? This didn't happen when I opened the same file in KeyMap Master. Thanks for any help.

[mr_d_p_gumby]

RM does not yet have the capability to import a KM upgrade using Manual Settings. Such upgrades use custom or undocumented protocols, and are difficult to translate. You will have to use KM in this case.

[johnsfine]

I'm new here and to this JP1 stuff. I'm thinking of getting a UFO 8910 or 9910 for discretes to accompany my HTM MX-800 and as a backup.

I think the Walmart 8810w (same as 8811) is a less expensive, and (very sightly) superior choice for generating discrete codes. I prefer it even more as an actual remote, but I have no need for the RF of the 9910, and I have a low opinion of the value of the LCD.

Which is best to use, Keymap Master or Remote Master? I like how RemoteMaster seams a bit more intuitive and user friendly but when opening a X-10 Hacked.txt file in RM I got a message that The Protocol "Manual Setting" (13) is not compatable with the selected remote.

KM does a have a slightly wider range of supported protocols and a much wider range of existing upgrades (though most KM upgrades can be imported to RM).

I don't recall if RM lacks X10 entirely, or just the "hacked" version. For generating codes for your MX, I can't see that the hacked version would have any value. In general, problems importing the upgrade would be inconvenient even if you don't need to keep the unsupported version of protocol. But for X10, I don't see the value of starting with someone else's upgrade anyway. Isn't it individual enough to the way you set up your X10 components that you're better off starting a new upgrade from scratch?

I'm using the RDF URC-9910 Extender 1. Is this a compatability issue with RM not yet worked out?

I'm confident that RM is OK with that RDF file. It even can take into account some subtle details in KeyMove generation for the "extender" version vs. non extender, that are in the RDF that KM (which doesn't use RDFs) can't. (Not that such details would matter if your intent is to use the JP1 remote to program the MX). The extender itself would help if you want the 8910 to teach fast macros to the MX, but KM or RM having access to the extender RDF is irrelevent for fast macros.

[Wheelie4]

Thanks for the info mr_d_p_gumby, much appreciated.

Hi johnsfine,

I know you from RemoteCentral.com. You suggested the 8811 in July of last year when I was looking for a permenant replacement for my pronto tsu3000. I ended up with the MX-800 thanks to an extremely generious offer from BlueDo and for its flexibility that almost equaled the prontos plus the RF feature helps alot since I can't actually point my remote at my equipment. (Paralized from neck down, operate remote with mouthstick/typing stick if you remember that back then). Remote Quest

Thats why the 9910 choice, for RF. The LCD is of no importance. I also figured it would be a good temp backup/replacement for the mx-800 if something were to go wrong with it. And to try taking advantage of discrete codes not in use now on the mx-800. Especially since I run 10 devices (X-10 being one) and JP1 will make that possible. So I started tinkering yesterday to see if I can do JP1 stuff.

I tried 3 X-10 files from yahoo and all 3 got the same protocol message in RM. No biggie I can just copy & paste them from KM to IR. I was just curious since this is all new.

P.S.
LOL I still don't completely get the advantage of an RDF Extender over a regular RDF. I just figured with my hometheater setup it was best to start with an Externder.

[The Robman]

I don't recall if RM lacks X10 entirely, or just the "hacked" version. For generating codes for your MX, I can't see that the hacked version would have any value. In general, problems importing the upgrade would be inconvenient even if you don't need to keep the unsupported version of protocol. But for X10, I don't see the value of starting with someone else's upgrade anyway. Isn't it individual enough to the way you set up your X10 components that you're better off starting a new upgrade from scratch?

Actually, if the purpose here is to learn signals from a JP1 remote into another remote, I would strongly recommend using the hacked version of the X10 signal.

The official HOME/0167 code sends out some redundant data before sending the real signal, which makes it very difficult for learning remotes to get a good capture of the signal. This was an issue a couple of years ago when the Crisp Solution's "uCommand" remotes first hit the streets.

My hacked protocol sends clean signals that exactly match those sent by real X10 remotes. Furthermore, I have created lots of discrete codes that are not supported by the official protocol. These discretes are really combination signals where the first part of the signal is the unit code and the second part is the ON, OFF, BRIGHT or DIM command. You should be able to learn these signals to non-macro buttons on your MX-800

[The Robman]

Btw Wheelie4, I have a few URC-9910s available if you need one.

[gfb107]

RM is supposed to be able to import upgrades that use Manual Settings.

It doesn't allow you to create new upgrades that use Manual Settings.

There appears to be a case-sensitivity bug in RM with regards to importing the X10_Hacked.txt KM upgrade. If you manually edit this file and change the P on line 175 to lower case, RM will import the upgrade just fine, and everything will be fine.

[The Robman]

I have edited both my X10_Hacked.txt file and my X10_Simple.txt file to use a lower case "p" in the "Upgrade Protocol" line, so these both should be good to go.

Greg, any chance that you could make RM less case dependant on that line? The normal protocol upgrades generated by KM have an upper case "P" in that line.

[Wheelie4]

My hacked protocol sends clean signals that exactly match those sent by real X10 remotes. Furthermore, I have created lots of discrete codes that are not supported by the official protocol. These discretes are really combination signals where the first part of the signal is the unit code and the second part is the ON, OFF, BRIGHT or DIM command. You should be able to learn these signals to non-macro buttons on your MX-800

Thats why I decided to try the x-10 hacked file. The edited file opens just fine now in RM. Thanks alot everyone.

Why would the 8811 be better for discrete usage than the 9810?

One other question off topic here. If I design a .IR file with 10 devices for a 9810 how would I get to the 9th & 10th devices since theres only 8 physical device buttons?

[gfb107]

Yes, I will be releasing v0.99 this week which will contain support for alternate PIDs, embedded notes in upgrades (for use w/ IR 5.01 or later), and a fix for RM to be case-insensitive. I believe that different versions of KM have had different cases for this line. The few I had seen before use "Upgrade protocol 0 = " but I guess newer version of KM use "Upgrade Protocol 0 = ".

[johnsfine]

I know you from RemoteCentral.com.

Now I remember.

Sorry, I barely look at the name on most posts I reply to, and if I do look, it rarely triggers memory of previous discuissions, so I tend to give answers as I did this time, totally ignoring context.

[johnsfine]

Why would the 8811 be better for discrete usage than the 9810?

The differences are trivial. I think there are a few less obscure rules in the behavior of the 8810 and a few less details (mainly the LCD) to worry about if you want to use an extender for fast macros. But overall nothing that should affect your decision between them. I guess I shouldn't have implied earlier that there was more than that. I just think the 8910 is an ugly design (both physical and software) relative to the 8810.

One other question off topic here. If I design a .IR file with 10 devices for a 9810 how would I get to the 9th & 10th devices since theres only 8 physical device buttons?

I think you can get at the extra device modes the device select special protocol, and probably the extender has some support for them.

Either way, those devices have incomplete support because the KeyMove logic in the remote supports only 8 devices. You can assign a different setup code to the device inpostion 0 vs. position 8, but they share the same KeyMoves (and 1 with 9, 2 with 10, etc.)

[Wheelie4]

Now I remember.

Sorry, I barely look at the name on most posts I reply to, and if I do look, it rarely triggers memory of previous discuissions, so I tend to give answers as I did this time, totally ignoring context.

No prob John. Even on the 8811 discrete info. Thanks for all the help.

Hmmm, the keymoves being associated with device 1 & 9 and 2 & 10 brings up a questionable situation. I'm definately trying to avoid keymoves when modifying the upgrades to save on memory so hopefully my devices won't conflict. LOL I'm still only 2 days old at this so I'll figure it out in time I guess. Still haven't made up my mind about getting a backup remote yet. Looked at Harmony last week creating a layout. Not flexible enough(plus costly).

[The Robman]

Rather than try to mess with the extra device modes in the URC-8910, regardless of which remote you get, if you want to make it support more than the 8 devices it normally supports, the easiest way to do that is to use the Device Multiplexor. That's a special protocol that allows you to change the setup code assigned to a device button with a single button push. The only real drawback is that any keymoves programmed in this mode will remain in place.

Another option is to combine devices into a single upgrade, which is a good idea when the device types warrant it. For example, I have combined my CD player and my stereo receiver into a single upgrade.

[Wheelie4]

if you want to make it support more than the 8 devices it normally supports, the easiest way to do that is to use the Device Multiplexor. That's a special protocol that allows you to change the setup code assigned to a device button with a single button push. The only real drawback is that any keymoves programmed in this mode will remain in place.

Hi Rob,

Whats it like up there above the clouds? LOL J/K, its just Device Multiplexor flew manyy miles over my head. Where can I read about that? This is only my second day.

I don't think combining devices would work for me, too many buttons per device. My cd player is a mega 101 disc player. I have 2 DVD players. One is a 5 disc player. The other a combo DVD/HD STB. So to many buttons ther too.