38 replies to this topic

[Huevos]

And do you also have a good description

Fix allocate unused memory index when use USALS.

Does this also write back to the tuner config as in the original request?

[Dimitrij]

Does this also write back to the tuner config as in the original request?

No.
I made this option in this version of the plugin.

http://openpli.org/f...attach_id=58559
But not sure that is correct.
Try checking.

[Huevos]

Does this also write back to the tuner config as in the original request?

No.
I made this option in this version of the plugin.

http://openpli.org/f...attach_id=58559
But not sure that is correct.
Try checking.

Can you post the .py please.

[Dimitrij]

 

Does this also write back to the tuner config as in the original request?

No.
I made this option in this version of the plugin.

http://openpli.org/f...attach_id=58559
But not sure that is correct.
Try checking.

Can you post the .py please.

http://openpli.org/f...attach_id=58559

[rhinoceros]

The wrong baseline was used for the patch. My initial mod was not effective and should not have gone into the repo. It does not hurt but it also does nothing. It looks weird when trying to understand the code.

 

if len(self.allocatedIndices):

  for loop ....

 

Can you take that part out again, please.

 

This thread has now been somewhat misused as the TS made a feature request but another issue was addressed. The feature request is noted, however but I am myself not in a position at present to work on it.

Edited by rhinoceros, 25 April 2014 - 19:17.

[Huevos]

There is still a horrid bug with allocate/memory positions. Right now this is part of the lnb instance, and that is wrong. If there were a motor instance it should be part of that but as there is not it should be moved to the tuner instance.

Right now, if you press allocate it shows the next position not being used by the current lnb, but memory positions relate to the motor not the lnb. The problem is when using more than one lnb on one motor the positions keep clashing. I've just set up the positioner on my c-band/Ku-band dish and this problem made it a nightmare.

[rhinoceros]

Yes is true. Not sure if it is better to move it to the tuner. Different tuner instances could also refer to the same motor. The clean solution would be to introduce a motor object. But that is a considerable impact. Cannot do anything right now myself but I'll keep it on the list. Perhaps there is another taker?

[Huevos]

When do 2 tuners relate to the same motor? Obvious there is satdepends, but with that the motor still only belongs to the primary tuner.

[malakudi]

One tuner can have more than one motor (diseqc switch + two diseqc 1.2 motors) but enigma2 seems to store position per tuner, for example: config.Nims.1.advanced.sat.48.rotorposition=11. Isn't this wrong?

Also, when selecting order (committed -> uncommitted etc) there is no option when to send the diseqc 1.2 command. For example, I could have a diseqc 1.2 motor and a monoblock lnb to receive a second satellite in a specific satellite position. Then I need command order diseqc 1.2 -> diseqc 1.0. If I have one diseqc switch and two diseqc motors, I need command order: 1.0 -> 1.2 . Haven't looked in the code how enigma2 handles this.

[gerard0610]

I have on one Tuner:

• A DiSEqC motor (USALS) via 'All Satellites' and
• A actuator DiSEqC motor via DiSEqC 1.2

[Huevos]

1) One tuner can have more than one motor (diseqc switch + two diseqc 1.2 motors) but enigma2 seems to store position per tuner, for example: config.Nims.1.advanced.sat.48.rotorposition=11. Isn't this wrong?

 

 

2) Also, when selecting order (committed -> uncommitted etc) there is no option when to send the diseqc 1.2 command. For example, I could have a diseqc 1.2 motor and a monoblock lnb to receive a second satellite in a specific satellite position. Then I need command order diseqc 1.2 -> diseqc 1.0. If I have one diseqc switch and two diseqc motors, I need command order: 1.0 -> 1.2 . Haven't looked in the code how enigma2 handles this.

1) No, it stores the position in the LNB object, but anyway as stated above there is no motor object so whithout a major rewrite of E2 there is not much we can do about this.

 

2) No, you are completely wrong. Motor command is always sent last and will always arrive at the correct motor as long as the switches are set. I've got both configurations running here so this is not just theory.

Edited by Huevos, 6 May 2014 - 17:11.

[Huevos]

I have on one Tuner:

• A DiSEqC motor (USALS) via 'All Satellites' and
• A actuator DiSEqC motor via DiSEqC 1.2

Personally I wouldn't use 'All satellites' because it messes with tuner priority. i.e. it makes E2 think it has lots more satellite configured than it can actually receive.

[littlesat]

@huevos,

 

Could you please add the latest changes I can consider to commit?

[Huevos]

@huevos,

 

Could you please add the latest changes I can consider to commit?

Yes. I'll post them later in the 32 LNB thread.

[gerard0610]

 

I have on one Tuner:

• A DiSEqC motor (USALS) via 'All Satellites' and
• A actuator DiSEqC motor via DiSEqC 1.2

Personally I wouldn't use 'All satellites' because it messes with tuner priority. i.e. it makes E2 think it has lots more satellite configured than it can actually receive.

Enigma2 is smart no messes.

First Enigma2 handles the LNB’s which are defined as DiSEqC 2.1 (in my case the actuator via VBox). If the related Satellite position is NOT defined as DiSEqC 2.1 he will be handeld as ‘All Satellites’ USALS).

 

I use this already several years.

Edited by gerard0610, 6 May 2014 - 21:19.

[gerard0610]

sorry, DiSEqC 2.1 should be 1.2

[Huevos]

Enigma2 is smart no messes.

Only as smart as what you feed it.

[rhinoceros]

I think I know how to add a motor object without major impacts. But you need to be patient since I am far from home, please.

[Huevos]

I think I know how to add a motor object without major impacts.

Thanks. It will be a very useful change. Just in this thread alone we have one person running multiple LNBs on one motor, and another person running multiple motors on one tuner, so it is definitely needed.

 

And maybe allocate in the positioner plugin can write back to the new motor object.