For me, although the screen is nice, is a no go in my store. I won't fight with the software Wizard which takes me 2-3 times longer to program a simple system than the MX editor programs do. I'll keep the 900 in the mix and ignore the 810. The 980 on the other hand, is the perfect remote.

I knew I was not crazy. Now that installers have them in hand w/ the software, they see the issues.

The wizard isn't very wizardly yet. The software was not ready.I know some have said they can do any setup in under 30 minutes, but clearly not the lay installer familiar w/ URC.

The MX980 looks mosly good though and is running on basically previously tested software.

Wait and see is the most positive advice one can give.

That has been my problem with the software. When I tried it the first time I could not stand it. I went back and try to program this like I have never programmed a remote before, WOW, it was so easy and quick it was really shocked.
I have programmed alot of differant companies remotes over the years and every time I hated the program at first and later found it to work "if" you found out why it programs like that.
I would really start from the the mind set of "I have never programmed before" and I think you will be shocked.
It is not for multi-room audio and it is not best tweeky remote but it works very well for what it was designed for.

My 2 cents

J.Todd:

Yes, the MX-810 was designed for installers who are not everyday progammers. The idea is that this is the remote to spec when the job doesn't require an installer with years of programming experience. There's no doubt that experienced programmers are going to want the editor to do more, in more specific ways.

As I've said in other threads... this remote is not the sequel to the 900. It's targeted at an entirely different part of the market. If you look at the 810 and think, "why on earth did they," then you're probably not the installer we think will want to program this remote. It's kind of the same reason there are iPhones and RAZR's in the same market... they have different target installers.

But, as you discovered, if you let go of preconceptions about how you've programmed other remotes, then ProWizard actually gets you to a functional system very quickly, without training. Yes, an experienced installer might be able to accomplish as much in a shorter time with MX-Editor, but they do so because they bring their initial training and prior experience to the job. With the MX-810, while knowing the system architecture is important, prior programming experience isn't as important, because the end result on the remote is less open.

Best regards,
Dale

Spot-on assessment. Reading your earlier posts in the thread I was nodding my head in agreement for all the same problems I encountered when I tried out the 810 Wizard this week.


I'm actually a little disappointed because I know I was one of the people that did have the pre-conception that the MX-810 would replace the MX900. After having used the wizard a few times I have to agree that the MX-810 is a different animal with a different purpose.

At this point, I don't see why it is being included as part of the Complete Control Series, because it does not seem to belong in the same category as the other remotes in the series.

But the nice design of the 810 is going to make end-users want it. So the installers are either going to have to learn how to program it quickly or try and upsell a client to a 900/950/980. I want an 810 for my parents as it has a very clean look and I will learn how to program it.

With that said, is there any chance that either of the following will happen:

1) An MX-editor version of the software for the 810. That way you can sell it to both experienced installers and non-experienced installers.

2) A higher end version of the 810 that uses the MX-editor specifically aimed at mre experienced installers.

Obviously, I couldn't comment on the future of the 810 architecture, even if I knew. But in this case, I don't have to dodge because I actually don't know. We're working on lots of fun stuff, and believe me, we're getting installer feedback every step of the way.

how do we get to the level of installer to be able to work with you guys on your testing processes?

Bryan:

I'm not part of that selection process, but I'm pretty sure it's one of those situations where we work with dealers with whom we've got long-standing relationships. I would imagine that dealers who are among that group just occasionally get asked to get involved in the early part of our process.

Just call URC and they will give you a form or take your info.
Why would they ever turn down free testing and feedback from someone knowlegeable?

Another happy...er um unhappy customer's 810 story.

[Link: remotecentral.com]

Since I'm listening to Magic by Springsteen,
"Radio Nowhere" and "Magic" remind me of URC and Remote Central.

I was asked to post this here for URC to view. It is from a post in the CI lounge.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SOUND.SD
Advanced Member

Joined:April 2006
Posts:936
View Profile
[ Edit Post ]
I agree.... the software just made me look like an ass in front of a good client.

It needs to have some sort of a backend for programming. I felt like a chef trying to make a perfect fillet mignon with an EZ Bake oven.

I will try again tonight and post my exact gripes later just to be sure. Hopefully they get it right because the remote is good it just needs better software.

What shocks me most is that it is still "meant" for the CI. The software seems otherwise.

Corey
San Diego / Bulldog Audio & Video
www.Bulldog-AV.com [ Reply | Quote & Reply ]
Post 5 made on Monday October 8, 2007 at 22:19
...it's new!
SOUND.SD
Advanced Member

Joined:April 2006
Posts:936
View Profile
[ Edit Post ]
Problems:

-The software does not properly detect devices that are TOAD or Discrete. It tries to but fails

-When it does identify it as a discrete device it uses the power on off buttons as the location for finding the discretes. Which is almost always wrong.

-Then when attempting to associate the discrete command with the proper button location it does not save the change. It reverts back because the automation test does not run.

-It makes you chose input labels then associate them with a button on the remote. This is one too many steps.

-Adding components to the macro is silly

-You can not delete individual codes from the macro

-Maybe all of this has been fixed in the update, but unfortunatley the update does not process. It says "fail to save patch file".



THIS IS A NICE REMOTE AND I/WE CAN SELL THE HELL OUT OF IT. JUST GIVE THE COMPETENT INSTALLERS BETTER SOFTWARE OR WE WILL START SUPPORTING ANOTHER LINE IN THIS PRICE RANGE.


EDIT:

I found the "Modify Order or add a step" page but it should not be three or four menus deep.

Also, you have still have to run through the wizard to get to this step.

Also, I am having trouble adding dummy devices that I may just want to use one code from.

This shouldnt be this complicated.

_______________________________________________________________________

So, I understand the target market for this remote. I know a large group of trunk slammers with no programming skills that will love this remote if URC gets the software fixed.

That being said, what remote are you going to place in this price range for the rest of us?

I have always backed URC in there new product moves because there is a learning curve to everything but they seem to have alienated the core installers that support the line.

The remote is perfect, just give us a choice which software to use or create a back end program that doesnt require ridiculous steps like labeling the TV input.


My 2 cents....... maybe more

The biggest problem with the wizard is that the IR library is less then 50% accurate which makes the wizard useless to someone without a fair knowledge of programming remotes, as most codes will need to be learned in manually, and all macro's adjusted accordingly for the remote to work properly. At the same time you can not change what the remote wants to do for state tracking, and the codes it chooses to send out if the customers decides to use the 'Help' feature. Not to mention all the other issues with the software noted in this thread,