I don't want to open a can of worms here...but. I got very excited about all of the acalades regarding the MX3000. Having used the TSU6000 on a number of occasions, and being frustrated at times with it's RF limitations, I was ecstatic that someone had built the proverbial better mouse trap. Finally , a remote that had all of the virtues of the Pronto, but with RF that actually worked consistently. I have installed four of these remotes, all using RF. In every situation, I have found the performance to be extremely inconsistent (iffy). the range is very limited using either the MRF250, or the MRF300. playing with the delay times and pulse counts sometimes helps, but it's like pinning a tail on a donkey. When you add the MRF300 IR output adjustments as well as the remote antenna RF range control,, you have two more parameters that may or may not improve the performance relative to the adjustment of the other three.

I'm not trying to be negaive here but..... The interface of the program, it's excellent intuitive structure, speed of data transfer, and it's build quality make it a winner. Where is it's ackilese heel?? Like all the rest of these remotes......It's RF performance.

Instead of storing the long macro strings and commands in the remote and then hoping they make it intact to the reciever, why don't they store those commands in the reciever and only have the remote send an address for those commands to the reciever. That's why Crestron and AMX are able to execute commands so consistently. I mean, what's the point of designing a sophisticated piece of hardware and software only to have a critical limitation inherent in it's topology