microHD Development: Feature Requests

[SatelliteAV]

Please use this thread to submit new suggestions, improvements and track development on new features

GEOSATpro supports you! Thank you for supporting GEOSATpro!

 

[brentb636]

Let me be the first ! I'd like to have the ability to run 3 receivers in the same room, without the remote control units conflicting. Obviously that mean, that I need three different brands of receiver. What IF That requirement were possible with a single receiver, and different remotes. I don't know where the remote codes are stored in the receiver, but if the coding is in the main stb file, then why couldn't the remote codes of the CS8000, for example, or the Openbox S9, or the Manhattan 1933, be available as optional firmware ? If the MicroHD is as competent as it appears, then I'd rather have 3 of them, than 3 separately branded receivers with differing capabilities. Gives you something to think about, Brian .

 

[SatelliteAV]

Let me be the first ! I'd like to have the ability to run 3 receivers in the same room, without the remote control units conflicting.

User selected RCU profile supported with four codes will be available with a future hardware release of a new GEOSATpro multi-profile remote control. There is no date projection for this development as it is has been rated as low priority and not affecting normal usage or operation.

 

[brentb636]

User selected RCU profile supported with four codes will be available with a future hardware release of a new GEOSATpro multi-profile remote control. There is no date projection for this development as it is has been rated as low priority and not affecting normal usage or operation.

That'll suit me just fine, when it's released , Brian ! Thanks

 

[melgarga]

Let me be the first ! I'd like to have the ability to run 3 receivers in the same room, without the remote control units conflicting. Obviously that mean, that I need three different brands of receiver. What IF That requirement were possible with a single receiver, and different remotes. I don't know where the remote codes are stored in the receiver, but if the coding is in the main stb file, then why couldn't the remote codes of the CS8000, for example, or the Openbox S9, or the Manhattan 1933, be available as optional firmware ? If the MicroHD is as competent as it appears, then I'd rather have 3 of them, than 3 separately branded receivers with differing capabilities. Gives you something to think about, Brian .

@Brent
That brings some "outside the box" ideas to the table. It would seem that if remote codes for other remotes could be determined (ie JP1 data), stored in a usable form in the user data area, and the FW is written to reference an alternate instruction source, selectable via the GUI to use that data to decode the IR signals.......may not be practical, and likely a support nightmare....but probably doable.

To be most effective, the "alternate" remote would need to be similar to the native one....protocol (RC5 etc), carrier freq (ie 38khz or whatever is used)

hmmmm.......the idea might be worth kicking around Brian....at least until the multi address V2 RCU is developed.

Referring to the wish list from the original thread, stuff I'd still like to see in future releases, just a recap:
the soft or half mute feature,
the user selectable record mode dropout time on LOS,
the spectrum analyzer mode, even if just "eye candy",
and the skins feature, (possibly with a skin editor app?),

Of course minor improvements/optimizing resulting from "field testing" is the 1st order of business. I'm looking forward to doing some "field testing" ASAP myself.

 

[chaskuchar]

sheesh, if you put on spectrum analyzer capability, that would be incredible. how about a special firmware mode to turn it into an o-scope? i still remember working with our 256 byte computer in b-school. charlie

 

[melgarga]

In the original thread Brian mentioned that it is indeed capable of a spectrum analyzer mode. As I recall the issue was setting up usable reference points in the FW was a task itself and was consuming program development resources needed to trap bugs and tweak performance.
Hence the reference to "eye candy". Even if the markers are not spot on, or cant be dynamic (user definable limits) the "whats on this bird" spikes could still be useful to some extent.
I suspect that unless a major design flaw comes to light or there is a parts shortage, it's not likely there will be any HW changes to this design, so dont look for any extra I/O of any sort. Plus,the thing is TINY, not much exterior case space to add goodies to anyway.
I'm not really a fan of, nor see a real need for the "micro" part of this product. I favor larger footprint devices with at least rudimentary navigation buttons or are at least semi lost or failed remote friendly. I would like, and I know at least one other member would like to see an offering in the future of just the main board assy with muti address remote capability. The possibilities of what one could do with that, and a few DiSEqC switches in a 19" rackmount are endless.

 

[VO1ONE]

If somehow Digital Data Stream Identification could be implemented to instantly positively ID satellites, that would be great! With the small form factor and a cheap 7" LCD TV, if you have DDSI along with the spectrum analyzer, this could double as a great, inexpensive install tool

 

[Pixl]

My spectrum analyzer has a sat ID function, it only shows the Echo Star and a few other sats, most don't. Not really that useful.

 

[VO1ONE]

All satellites and uplinkers are required by the FCC (and possibly the ITU) to transmit ID. I'd assume the reason your spectrum analyzer is only showing a few sats is because the internal cross-reference between the ID and the satellite names is out of date. Although I don't personally own a meter (or SA for that matter) capable of identifying satellites, it appears there are models out there that identify a lot more than just a few, so a useful implementation certainly seems possible.

 

[SatelliteAV]

sheesh, if you put on spectrum analyzer capability, that would be incredible. how about a special firmware mode to turn it into an o-scope? i still remember working with our 256 byte computer in b-school. charlie

Analyzing the satellite signal is quite different than analyzing signals from an external input. I will venture to suggest that while this out of the box suggestion would be great to have, it will not be implemented.

 

[SatelliteAV]

If somehow Digital Data Stream Identification could be implemented to instantly positively ID satellites, that would be great! With the small form factor and a cheap 7" LCD TV, if you have DDSI along with the spectrum analyzer, this could double as a great, inexpensive install tool

Will look into the ability to incorporate DDSI. The data is just another PID....

 

[kingofku]

All satellites and uplinkers are required by the FCC (and possibly the ITU) to transmit ID. I'd assume the reason your spectrum analyzer is only showing a few sats is because the internal cross-reference between the ID and the satellite names is out of date. Although I don't personally own a meter (or SA for that matter) capable of identifying satellites, it appears there are models out there that identify a lot more than just a few, so a useful implementation certainly seems possible.

The transission of ATIS (Automatic Transmission Identification System) is only required with analog carriers. I've been uplinking digital for nearly 15 years and know of no requirement requiring us to ID our carriers. We do have the ability to enter some info into the data stream. Some guys include their phone number, others client name, etc. There is nothing to specify what we can enter under the service ID. We are required though to have an FCC license for the antenna. It specifically states what power levels we can use to transmit, whether we're licensed to transmit on CONUS or international satellites and if we are allowed to transmit digitally as well as using analog exicters. I've been inspected once by the FCC field engineers specifically asking for a license. It was actually quite a treat since these guys are usually crawling in/around am/fm/tv transmitters.

 

[carlospr43]

The title of this thread is :Feature Requests, Bug Reports and Firmware Fixes
Why we keep sending request and people(who usually got their MicroHD for beta test or free) keep jumping on you justifying the MicroHD??? I guess that request should be receive in a positive way, analyze and make a decision if they can be implemented or not. Not the other way people sending request and a bunch of people jumping on you looking for side solutions such conector convertor for this or this or whatever..... I used to participate in the R&d of new product and any idea coming from a bunch of people brainstorming was always welcome. There is no need to justify or answer every request

 

[rv1pop]

The title of this thread is :Feature Requests, Bug Reports and Firmware Fixes
Why we keep sending request and people(who usually got their MicroHD for beta test or free) keep jumping on you justifying the MicroHD??? I guess that request should be receive in a positive way, analyze and make a decision if they can be implemented or not. Not the other way people sending request and a bunch of people jumping on you looking for side solutions such conector convertor for this or this or whatever..... I used to participate in the R&d of new product and any idea coming from a bunch of people brainstorming was always welcome. There is no need to justify or answer every request

First and maybe my only answer to that question is the FIRST part of the TITLE: "microHD" development. NOT "MAXIMOCHUCHACO HD MAXI BOX". All the extra hardware is not in the design - nor can it be - in the micro. A new thread for the mini, and one for the Maximo?

And while I am typing this - in the middle of a broadcast I was recording - my INVERTER DIED. I lost the program as well as my satellite TV viewing.
I WANT MY microHD. NOW. Not next year.

EDIT... And my internet modem also went down. I got it up very temporarily on an extra 12vdc battery to give it 24 volts.

 

[Mr Tony]

New remotes arriving next week have alpha characters on numeric keys.

cool

 

[Mr Tony]

The title of this thread is :Feature Requests, Bug Reports and Firmware Fixes
Why we keep sending request and people(who usually got their MicroHD for beta test or free) keep jumping on you justifying the MicroHD??? I guess that request should be receive in a positive way, analyze and make a decision if they can be implemented or not. Not the other way people sending request and a bunch of people jumping on you looking for side solutions such conector convertor for this or this or whatever..... I used to participate in the R&d of new product and any idea coming from a bunch of people brainstorming was always welcome. There is no need to justify or answer every request

I dont understand where this negativity came from. What I find interesting is back in November when the MicroHD first was spoken of (in regards to the audio streams on 139W) at that time Brian asked for input from the members here about how to make this receiver great. Find me another receiver out there that did that?
He didn't do what other companies do which is send out a receiver buggy as crap, maybe fix something and then drop it and rebadge it as a new model. SatelliteAv took their time and made sure that most everything was taken care of before sending it out.
The specs were posted in April about what it could do and what it can't and yet we're almost 3 months later and people are asking why ________ isnt a feature?
The back of the receiver is pretty much taken up by the connectors and due to the small size you can't get anything else on the back. But it has what most people need.

You are talking about "connector converter" and such well lets see....when the Sathawk/Solomend/Openbox first came out you were REQUIRED to get an adapter for the power plug or to jimmy rig it. No way around that. The MicroHD works out of the box for probably 95% of the users out there.

There are features posted here that are being resolved but some would probably be down the road in the (as rv1pop writes) "MAXIMOCHUCHACO HD MAXI BOX"

Is the MicroHD for everyone? no
But compared to other receivers out there this one does what most folks want out of the box....and not have to worry about a software update to maybe fix the issues.

 

[carlospr43]

I dont understand where this negativity came from. What I find interesting is back in November when the MicroHD first was spoken of (in regards to the audio streams on 139W) at that time Brian asked for input from the members here about how to make this receiver great. Find me another receiver out there that did that?
He didn't do what other companies do which is send out a receiver buggy as crap, maybe fix something and then drop it and rebadge it as a new model. SatelliteAv took their time and made sure that most everything was taken care of before sending it out.
The specs were posted in April about what it could do and what it can't and yet we're almost 3 months later and people are asking why ________ isnt a feature?
The back of the receiver is pretty much taken up by the connectors and due to the small size you can't get anything else on the back. But it has what most people need.

You are talking about "connector converter" and such well lets see....when the Sathawk/Solomend/Openbox first came out you were REQUIRED to get an adapter for the power plug or to jimmy rig it. No way around that. The MicroHD works out of the box for probably 95% of the users out there.

There are features posted here that are being resolved but some would probably be down the road in the (as rv1pop writes) "MAXIMOCHUCHACO HD MAXI BOX"

Is the MicroHD for everyone? no
But compared to other receivers out there this one does what most folks want out of the box....and not have to worry about a software update to maybe fix the issues.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Nothing to do with the main post title FEATURE REQUEST, BUG REPORTS AND FIRMWARE ISSUES!! In the POSITIVE SIDE we need to let people feel free to express their opinion and feel free to request changes to the MICROHD (nothing to do in this post with Solomend/Openbox). From there Brian and his group can double check and see if is feasible to implement or not. I know there are multiples request that cant be suceed because there is no room for it, hey but let the members feel free to make suggestion without people jumping back on you!

 

[Mr Tony]

I have decided to break it off to two different threads since alot of feature requests turn into conversations

one for bugs and fixes
one for feature request

Thanks!!

 

[Mr Tony]

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Nothing to do with the main post title FEATURE REQUEST, BUG REPORTS AND FIRMWARE ISSUES!! In the POSITIVE SIDE we need to let people feel free to express their opinion and feel free to request changes to the MICROHD (nothing to do in this post with Solomend/Openbox). From there Brian and his group can double check and see if is feasible to implement or not. I know there are multiples request that cant be suceed because there is no room for it, hey but let the members feel free to make suggestion without people jumping back on you!

But again this brings me back to the original question.....why such the negativity?

In this thread there have been the following feature requests and Brian's response
-different remote addresses (which has been addressed in a later implication)
-spectrum analyzer grid (which said probably wouldnt be)
-positive ID of satellites (which said "Will look into the ability to incorporate DDSI")

You have to realize the MicroHD is a very small size so there really is no way to add any additional outputs on the back of it. The only reason I mentioned SSO in the post is you brought up "connector converter" when as is the Micro needs no converters unless either your TV doesn't have HDMI or you want component. The SSO's originally had the wrong type of plug for North America so before you even got to power it up you needed a converter.

Anybody is free to request whatever features they want. In the long MicroHD thread we even asked it to make coffee
But I think the reality is SatelliteAV is more worried about any bugs that come up than adding say a spectrum analyzer on the screen (using that as an example). At least the feature requests are being looked at. I know of pretty much any other receiver I've worked with you ask for a feature and you usually get no response

Now lets get back to the topic of feature requests I'm sure folks will have some new thoughts once they get them