The manhattan 3.4 thread got so long I lost where we are.
If I install 3.4 can I run a DiSEqC 1.2 motor AND a 1.0 or 1.1 switch ?
If I install 3.4 can I run a DiSEqC 1.2 motor AND a 1.0 or 1.1 switch ?
Manhattan ver 3.4 where are we?
- Thread starter Pixl
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 5
- Views 1K
-
HAPPY NEW YEAR! EXCITING CHANGES COMING IN 2026!
Thank you for a great 2025 and we are so looking forward to 2026!
PLEASE CLICK HERE to find out about some of our plans for 2026 including our BRAND NEW NAME we will be moving to in 2026! Exciting times are ahead!
Happy New Year from your friends here at SatelliteGuys.US!
- Status
Ok.
Just seems to me there was still some motor/switch issue remaining or something to do with 22k
Just seems to me there was still some motor/switch issue remaining or something to do with 22k
I think there is an unresolved issue with some 22khz switch configurations, but I haven't had any problems in my setup, Jim . 
Do you know if it will control a universal lnb that calls for 22k for the high band, along with diseqc 1.0, 1.1, and motor 1.2 ?
I tested that configuration and I believe it works. I only used about 3 sats though on Diseqc 1.2, since I prefer USALS for Ku motors. [edit] See post 31 of this thread, http://www.satelliteguys.us/free-air-fta-discussion/269067-manhattan-update-3-4-thread-4.html . You will see the problems that still seem to exist with the 22khz implementation. I believe it boils down to not being able to make settings "sticky", for each satellite. I might be wrong.
[edit] See post 31 of this thread, http://www.satelliteguys.us/free-air-fta-discussion/269067-manhattan-update-3-4-thread-4.html . You will see the problems that still seem to exist with the 22khz implementation. I believe it boils down to not being able to make settings "sticky", for each satellite. I might be wrong.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
