73 replies to this topic

[rhinoceros]

@Huevos,

Can your blind scan also be used on a motorised installlation? How do you know when to start with the scan?

[Dimitrij]

So, bottom line, it depends on your interests. I hope I have answered your question here.

Thank you.
100% complete answer.
Now everything was clear .

[Huevos]

@Huevos,

Can your blind scan also be used on a motorised installlation? How do you know when to start with the scan?

Yes it can. The scan starts immediately, but that is ok if you move the dish first. It would be easy enough to put in a time delay that just works for motorised installs. Degrees per second would work fine for a DiSEqC motor but not when using a positioner because the dish moves at different speeds across different parts of the arc. When I edited this the file I started with didn't have a delay and I didn't add one because I hate waiting.

My symbol rates are 2 figure integers between 1 and 45. I thought there was no point in 5 figure symbol rates as these take longer for the user to enter and the driver needs an integar between 1 and 45, so anything else would just be rounded off.

The code I posted relies on the binary provided by Xtrend. I've noticed the Vu+ binary returns some erroneous parameters and my code attempts to fix this before the service scan is done although this is not 100% possible in the case of DVB-S2 searches.

I don't think my code is for diehards, it just adds a few filtering options over the most basic blind scan (which by default are switched off anyway).

Timewise the transponder search (on the Ultimo) takes just under 3 minutes for a full run of a Ku satellite, plus the time for the service scan, which depends on the number of transponders found and how strong they are.

[Rob van der Does]

I don't think my code is for diehards, it just adds a few filtering options over the most basic blind scan (which by default are switched off anyway).

Having used you plugin I fully agree with that.
Furthermore: it works for both the ET's and the VU's, and having two locations to do a (different) blindscan (via the plugin and via the modified manual scan) might be confusing.

[rhinoceros]

I don't think my code is for diehards, it just adds a few filtering options over the most basic blind scan (which by default are switched off anyway).

Please, no offense, you did a great job. What I wanted to emphasize is that I can see the benefits of your plugin for feed hunting, as you mentioned yourself. However, personally I am not interested in feeds since they are mostly short lived and the plugin that is integrated with the scan setup is built for comfort. The purpose of that blind scan is really to identify live transponders in case the network list is not complete or unreliable. At present I have 18 such transponders. This kind of use of blind scan is also offered by all non-libux boxes in as far as I am aware, since these do not work with a list of known transponders.

Yes it can. The scan starts immediately.

You see, that was also one of the problems with the original integrated blind scan version. Somehow motorised installations are not so universally supported. Waiting is required if you just point to a satellite position. That's why I put in a wait to fix that. But a wait is advisable with the avl binary in any case, since I found out that on a cold start (the first run), the binary has a high probability of missing a quite a few transponders. I don't know if you share that experience?

[Rob van der Does]

I would suggest to add this plugin to the open plugin repos. That way many suggestions are easily to add by others, and also extending the functionality to more hardware devices might be possible.

[Huevos]

Rhinoceros, I didn't post my code to compete with yours. When you started the thread you said "The blind scan is Ku band only". I spent quite some time coming up with a working solution to the C-band problem and my code contains a method to sort this out, so I felt posting it might have been helpful (or at the very least time saving) in the development of your code. Also someone else did ask me to post my source.

I found out that on a cold start (the first run), the binary has a high probability of missing a quite a few transponders.

No one has mentioned that to me and I don't have an ET9x00 to test with. It doesn't make any sense though as it is just a piece of software that is being "cold started" on each run. Maybe it is hardware related, I don't know. What I have noticed though is that sometimes a run doesn't find anything however many times you do it and the only way to cure this is to restart the receiver (or switch to a different tuner).

Waiting is required if you just point to a satellite position. That's why I put in a wait to fix that.

Some non-linux receivers have the wait built-in and others don't. TBH, the wait drives me crazy. My Vantage x221 TS CI has it. What happens is on satellites like 12.5W where the feeds are grouped in small sections of the band you might do 4 or 5 small runs rather than scan the whole satellite. On each run the Vantage waits for 2 minutes to make sure the dish is parked on that satellite, even though on the first run it had already moved. Very annoying in my opinion.

Anyway you refer to it as a fix, i.e. a matter of right and wrong and that is not the case, more it is a matter of opinion or a matter of what better suits one user over another, and the easiest way to deal with that is to give the user the option to decide if there should be a delay.

Edited by Huevos, 19 February 2012 - 10:32.

[rhinoceros]

Rhinoceros, I didn't post my code to compete with yours.

That is clear, I didn't see it that way either, but the thread is confusing now. When someone reports something on the blind scan without specifying which one, we are all confused. Personally I think what should happen is that we update the built-in blind scan and we should have your version as a separate plugin in the feed. Each user to decide for himself which one he wants to use and when. In fact, I believe your version warrants a separate thread alltogether for discussion, since it is much more involved. Please, consider opening a separate thread for it.

I found out that on a cold start (the first run), the binary has a high probability of missing a quite a few transponders.

No one has mentioned that to me and I don't have an ET9x00 to test with. It doesn't make any sense though as it is just a piece of software that is being "cold started" on each run. Maybe it is hardware related, I don't know. What I have noticed though is that sometimes a run doesn't find anything however many times you do it and the only way to cure this is to restart the receiver (or switch to a different tuner).

Oh, it is definitely hardware related. As you say the software doesn't change between runs. But if a receiver restart produces different result thereafter, there is still a software issue ...

Anyway you refer to it as a fix, i.e. a matter of right and wrong and that is not the case, more it is a matter of opinion or a matter of what better suits one user over another, and the easiest way to deal with that is to give the user the option to decide if there should be a delay.

That's fine but then you should give the user an option. It can be a bit more clever than what your Vantage does. If you know it is a motorised installation you could estimate the time it takes to reach position and you could know when you are already on position. See my Positioner Setup plugin for an example of how to do that.

Without an option to wait you would have to move to another plugin, such as the Positioner Setup and move your dish somehow. But that is very inconvenient as you could easily loose your position upon leaving the Positioner Setup (if you are not careful that is).

The waiting issue and my observation on first run results led me to hit two problems in one blow. I use a first run of the binary.That one also sets the tuner parameters. The run takes just a little over 1 minute. I called it the focusing stage. That one minute is enough to move the vast majority of motors even from one extreme end to the other. You could also always switch to high power if you have concerns there. The real scan then starts on the second and subsequent runs. I found it very important to reset all the tuner parameters just before each run. That solved quite a few of the earlier instabilities and I do no longer have to reset the tuners by a hardware reset. I also prevented the user from aborting a blind scan one started. Also to prevent tuner upset and the need to restart. Agreed, it is full-automatic operation and the user is required to exercise some patience. But with the way the built-in blind scan is now, I never had to restart the box. I could always succesfully do the service scan and return to normal operation without any gui or box restart. That's important from a useability perspective. In fact, I see that as a requirement. After all, a restart requires more patience ...

If you could improve your support for motorised installation, I believe that would be a big help to users with such an installation. Thanks for your efforts.

[Huevos]

Rhinoceros, I'm not sure of the site layout... could you please post a link to your positioner.py file and blindscan.py.

[Rob van der Does]

While hoping not to interfere to much, allow me a remark from the user-side:
I think having a blindscan functionality from two locations (one within the manual scan and another from a plugin that has to be installed) would not be optimal.
And apart from that: as I understand it one is only for ET's, while the other is working on both the ET and VU boxes.

[rhinoceros]

Rhinoceros, I'm not sure of the site layout... could you please post a link to your positioner.py file and blindscan.py.

Sure, The positioner setup code is here:
http://openpli.org/f...-installations/
Take the latest ipk package, perhaps I released fixes.

The blind scan is in this very thread just a couple of posts above. Take the latest ipk package as well.

Edited by rhinoceros, 19 February 2012 - 23:01.

[rhinoceros]

I think having a blindscan functionality from two locations (one within the manual scan and another from a plugin that has to be installed) would not be optimal.
And apart from that: as I understand it one is only for ET's, while the other is working on both the ET and VU boxes.

Frankly I don't see the issue. I am also just a user. You can install the one, the other or both. Whatever your preference. There is no conflict between these two packages. And there is no cluttering of the user interface as well. The integrated blind scan is not called through a plugin menu or extensions menu.

If it is true that both ET and VU have the same tuners, they can probable use the same binary. In that case either both plugins work for both boxes or none works on either. SInce I cannot test a VU box, I will not commit on the functioning, of course.

[Rob van der Does]

....You can install the one, the other or both. ...

LoL, that's exactly what I meant by 'confusing'.........

[Huevos]

If it is true that both ET and VU have the same tuners, they can probable use the same binary.

Is it true? I'm not so sure. There are certain things available to the ET that aren't on the Vu+, such as SNR in dB, although this might just be down to drivers.

By the way could you please post your .py files, as the only files linked to in this thread and the other one are .ipk's.

[prompter]

@all:

still doesn't work, I'm still getting the error message poster earlier by another user when trying to upgrade online via the feed.

downloaded all posted versions in this thread and tried to install them manually, no luck as well.

when I remove the existing blindscan plugin (version of 04/11) via ftp, enigma2 does not boot at all, big spinner is displayed after several minutes but no picture. had to re-flash.

available version in the feed is still corrupt, this has also been mentioned earlier.

asking for support. thanks!

[rhinoceros]

still doesn't work, I'm still getting the error message poster earlier by another user when trying to upgrade online via the feed.

You're right. There was a md5sum error in the package. Don't know why and how. Anyway here is a package that I just succesfully installed myself. It has a different date, but there is no functional change. Just re-packaging. This version should also replace the defective package on the feed.

Attached Files

•  enigma2-plugin-systemplugins-blindscan_2012-02-15_mipsel.ipk   14.9KB   67 downloads

[rhinoceros]

By the way could you please post your .py files, as the only files linked to in this thread and the other one are .ipk's.

Sure. Here they are. But if you install the ipkg tools, you can easily unpack and re-pack the ipk files yourself.

Attached Files

•  ScanSetup.zip   11.77KB   46 downloads
•  PositionerSetup.zip   12.02KB   28 downloads

[golfdiesel]

How do I find the blindscan plugin in the first place? It is installed, but I can't find it anywhere on my et9500.

[golfdiesel]

Is blindscan no longer supported on the et9x00?

[waldilein]

ET9500 FW_v5 crash with manual install the enigma2-plugin-systemplugins-blindscan_2012-02-15_mipsel.ipk