59 replies to this topic

[Rob van der Does]

I just uploaded the ipk to the 3rd party feed...

I don't get it: you always want to build from the sources, and preferably not use pre-compiled ipk's. Now you have the opportunity and you don't use it ??

[littlesat]

Indeed you don't get it....

Indeed you still don't get it....

Edited by littlesat, 1 March 2014 - 19:57.

[Rob van der Does]

So this means you changed your stance? I can't believe that, as (IMHO) building is always better.

[Erik Slagter]

It might be better if Huevos tried to fixed the real sources of this blindscan plugin instead of oe-alliance's fork.....

 

I just uploaded the ipk to the 3rd party feed...

I'd prefer it if OUR OWN version (satscan, which is openly available via github->e2openplugins), which is especially made compatible with OpenPLi, would be improved with these few points instead of introducing yet another plugin that does the same, and even in 3rd party, so after each change in Enigma, we can expect GSOD's.

[Rob van der Does]

So you then create your own version?

[Dimitrij]

Satscan must also be adapted to recent changes PLi.
This plugin also causes GSOD .

+

Blindscan has a much more advanced search options.

[Erik Slagter]

It would be rather less confusing if this plugin would have a different, new name, because it's not the same plugin as from vuplus originally.

 

I'd really consider including it into the native feed of OpenPLi, even instead of satscan, if it where offered on e2openplugins. Or at least a public repository, including an example .bb file.

 

Also it's required that it works on both vuplus and et models. For that it needs to include the appropriate REQUIRES to draw in the binary components from the feed (see satscan).

Edited by Erik Slagter, 1 March 2014 - 20:38.

[littlesat]

The oe alliance version cannot be used... As e,g. Vix's branding stuff dirts it...

[Erik Slagter]

Other, neutral versions are still ok though.

Edited by Erik Slagter, 1 March 2014 - 20:54.

[Robinson]

Blindscan has a much more advanced search options.

Exactly!

Erik, I would be glad to use the OpenPLi-dedicated Satscan but if you compare scan options of the two, you will see useful things missing from Satscan.

I know you are very busy at the moment but do you think you could add those various scan options to Satscan in the future? I did mention them here: http://openpli.org/f...ndpost&p=404186

[Huevos]

Adapted version of the plugin for openPli.

 

Thanks to the author Huevos 

Just want to make clear I wasn't the original author of the plugin. It was already adapted into ViX by Andy before I touched it. I just made it user friendly and added the filters.

 

@Littlesat, what do you mean about dirty hacks? The thing is the blindscan driver is different not just for every manufacturer but also for every tuner. So with receivers like the Ultimo, Uno, Duo2 there is more than one driver needed for the same receiver. So how do you suggest that should be dealt with without a method of recognizing the box/tuner type from inside the .py file?

[Erik Slagter]

By driver you mean binary executable I guess. Yes, that's unavoidable.

 

What options are we talking about?

 - excluding of certain SR ranges (I wasn't aware that was even possible on vu+)

 - no GSOD

 

OTOH the Satscan source is public on github (e2openplugins). For someone who adapted the ViX plugin, it should be a piece of cake to also adapt the Satscan plugin.

[Huevos]

By driver you mean binary executable I guess. Yes, that's unavoidable.

 

What options are we talking about?

 - excluding of certain SR ranges (I wasn't aware that was even possible on vu+)

 - no GSOD

 

OTOH the Satscan source is public on github (e2openplugins). For someone who adapted the ViX plugin, it should be a piece of cake to also adapt the Satscan plugin.

By driver you mean binary executable I guess. Yes, that's unavoidable.

Yes, it's unavoidable.because in the case of the Ultimo or Duo2 you can have both AVL2108 and AVL6222 tuners in the same receiver and each requires it's correct binary.

 

excluding of certain SR ranges (I wasn't aware that was even possible on vu+)

Yes, the Vu+ binaries are capable of only including a specific SR range, but that is irrelevant, because if they weren't you could still do this filtering in the .py file.

 

no GSOD

Yes, the binaries from certain manufacturers output nonsense values that cause BSoDs. In the OE-Alliance plugin all output of the binary is checked for nonsense values that don't correspond with the search parameters so as to avoid these BSoDs.

 

What options are we talking about?

Filters include: SR range; sync discovered transponders with satellite.xml (so as not to have multiple copies of the same channels); avoid known transponders (good for feed hunting); and avoid transponders on adjacent satellites.

 

Also, the OE-Alliance plugin includes some simple arithmetic so that it can be used to blind scan C-band satellites even though the binaries have only been written with Ku band satellites in mind.

Edited by Huevos, 2 March 2014 - 11:09.

[littlesat]

Yes, the binaries from certain manufacturers output nonsense values that cause BSoDs. In the OE-Alliance plugin all output of the binary is checked for nonsense values that don't correspond with the search parameters so as to avoid these BSoDs.

So it work-a-rounds the issues that are within a closed source manufacturer's binary?

Also, the OE-Alliance plugin includes some simple arithmetic so that it can be used to blind scan C-band satellites even though the binaries have only been written with Ku band satellites in mind.

Was this your work...

 

In general I would prefer a manufacturer allow us to get a spectrum analyser function.... get with your remote to a peak and tune into this one.... That is workable...

Edited by littlesat, 2 March 2014 - 11:18.

[Erik Slagter]

Yes, it's unavoidable.because in the case of the Ultimo or Duo2 you can have both AVL2108 and AVL6222 tuners in the same receiver and each requires it's correct binary.

It's a shame vuplus didn't (apparently) produce one binary for all, checking the exact tuner type itself.

Yes, the Vu+ binaries are capable of only including a specific SR range, but that is irrelevant, because if they weren't you could still do this filtering in the .py file.

But in that case it wouldn't give any speedup.

Yes, the binaries from certain manufacturers output nonsense values that cause BSoDs. In the OE-Alliance plugin all output of the binary is checked for nonsense values that don't correspond with the search parameters so as to avoid these BSoDs.

The satscan plugin already has some validation, but apparently they screwed up even more.

Filters include: SR range; sync discovered transponders with satellite.xml (so as not to have multiple copies of the same channels); avoid known transponders (good for feed hunting); and avoid transponders on adjacent satellites.

These are interesting options, but not an option for someone like me to implement (time to implement vs. time using it).

My proposals still stand, either
- make the blindscan available via e2openplugins, with the correct dependencies, or I might even do it myself, and I will replace the satscan plugin with this version
- or incorporate the changes into satscan

[Erik Slagter]

So it work-a-rounds the issues that are within a closed source manufacturer's binary?

That has been a known fact for years.

[Rob van der Does]

Yes, it's unavoidable.because in the case of the Ultimo or Duo2 you can have both AVL2108 and AVL6222 tuners in the same receiver and each requires it's correct binary.

Add the AVL6211 to that list:

 VU-Tuners.jpg   65.35KB   31 downloads

What options are we talking about?
Filters include: SR range; sync discovered transponders with satellite.xml (so as not to have multiple copies of the same channels); avoid known transponders (good for feed hunting); and avoid transponders on adjacent satellites.

Although not literally 'an option', but still: human readable values for frequency & bitrate.

 Blindscan settings 3.jpg   64.38KB   31 downloads

[Robinson]

The version adapted by Dima73 looks like this:

 

 

Attached Files

•  screenshot.jpg   79.31KB   29 downloads

[Rob van der Does]

Well, that looks good I think (although I can't read it all).

[Huevos]

Also, the OE-Alliance plugin includes some simple arithmetic so that it can be used to blind scan C-band satellites even though the binaries have only been written with Ku band satellites in mind.

Was this your work...

Yes, the C-band stuff was my idea and implemented by me.