119 replies to this topic

[littlesat]

Here in the Netherlands CableScan is creating HD lists....????

[Rob van der Does]

Here in the Netherlands CableScan is creating HD lists....????

By far not for everybody. I see quite a number of Dutch comments about cablescan not working at all.

[Huevos]

No. It creates an SD list with the HD mixed in. What it doesn't do is create a list identical to an official box. This means anyone that switches from the official receiver to E2 will need to relearn the numbers.

There are other problems too but lets keep it simple.

How do you suggest finding the user defined descriptors for every provider.

Edited by Huevos, 28 September 2015 - 10:36.

[littlesat]

I do not experience issues here?????

[Rob van der Does]

there are more people and more providers.....

[Huevos]

I do not experience issues here?????

NL providers (Ziggo for example) use descriptor 88 in the NIT for their HD list. As cablescan doesn't understand that it will produce the wrong list.

[hemertje]

It provides an official channellist from my glasfiber operator, HD &SD mixed

[Huevos]

It provides an official channellist from my glasfiber operator, HD &SD mixed

What provider? Now compare the LCN to an official HD receiver.

Edited by Huevos, 28 September 2015 - 15:36.

[littlesat]

Sorry I really cannot verify any issue with the CableScan....  I get the same results as with the original box...

Edited by littlesat, 28 September 2015 - 16:14.

[Rob van der Does]

Sorry I really cannot verify any issue with the CableScan....  I get the same results as with the original box...

As I said: you're only one person with only one provider. There's more out there.

[peterjo]

I tried it again on my ET6500. It was not in the feed to install, so I copied the folder from a Solo SE box.

It is running fine now. HD sort looks ok.

However it is very sloppy the dummy fillers are visible.

For the filler #SERVICE 1:320:0:0:0:0:0:0:0:0::- is used.

It's better to use #SERVICE 1:832:d:0:0:0:0:0:0:0: (hidden), as we use in AutoBouquetMaker.

[peterjo]

Why don't you have AutoBouquetMaker in your feeds?

It's a good plugin for dvb-c, dvb-t and dvb-s providers.

It is running fine in PLI. There is only a warning during install of a clib.

Probably we have compiled it with a newer clib.

[Rob van der Does]

Why don't you have AutoBouquetMaker in your feeds?

It's a good plugin for dvb-c, dvb-t and dvb-s providers.

It is running fine in PLI. There is only a warning during install of a clib.

Probably we have compiled it with a newer clib.

ABM can be build directly from the feeds (see https://github.com/o...toBouquetsMaker ) and would be a nice addition to PLi.

On https://github.com/o...Maker/providers you can see which providers are currently supported.

[littlesat]

AutobouquetsMaker is a big work-a-round plugin with external binaries etc.... that was exactly what I meant to be made the same as fastscan/cablescan...

 

But you still can use it

[Rob van der Does]

Are we talking about the same plugin?

[peterjo]

AutobouquetsMaker is a big work-a-round plugin with external binaries etc.... that was exactly what I meant to be made the same as fastscan/cablescan...

 

But you still can use it

You can not compare it.

There is only 1 so file, in the plugin folder, rest are py files.

Did you ever tried it?

[Huevos]

AutobouquetsMaker is a big work-a-round plugin with external binaries etc.... that was exactly what I meant to be made the same as fastscan/cablescan...

 

But you still can use it

It sounds like you are confusing AB E2 and AutoBouquetsMaker. AB E2 is a plugin that depends on OpenWebIF and just scans 28 east. AutoBouquetsMaker is a plugin which currently supports in the region of 35 providers from satellite, terrestrial and cable and controls tuning, etc. internally using E2.

[Rob van der Does]

Did you ever tried it?

Seeing Littlesat's reaction I'm pretty sure he hasn't. A pity: many find it a very useful plugin, and there is no other plugin or embedded functionality that offers the same.

So I repeat: why not add it to the PLi-feeds? I can't think of any good reason, especially as it can be build from the sources.

[littlesat]

Using it and that it works does not say it is good implemented...

 

But don't worry... there is more stuff in the Enigma2 world that is nog good implemented.... Even stuff I committed sometimes...

 

I just tried to notice that for the AutoBouquetsMaker it might be better that the idea from CableScan/FastScan was followed instead if doing a lot of (slow) stuff in python with a separate binary...  But this is something I tried to tell for years and I know it takes time to develop... But I think you cat get a much better result. 

 

And the same topic is valid for some of those EPG reading plugins (Cross plugin). That is also something that could be better migrated in E2 instead of a plugin that is manipulating/hacking the EPG data...

 

As so I can make it an endless list... but it will not help at all...

 

But it is a plugin so it is usable for anyone who wants it. So don't worry again...

Edited by littlesat, 30 September 2015 - 08:59.

[Huevos]

I don't understand. If you embed code the plugin needs in E2 how could the plugin ever work on an image that doesn't have that code embeded?