Your Universal Remote Control Center
RemoteCentral.com
Complete Control by URC Forum - View Post
Previous section Next section Previous page Next page Up level
Up level
The following page was printed from RemoteCentral.com:

Login:
Pass:
 
 

Page 2 of 4
Topic:
In need of help. CCP software. Bought house with MX-980's
This thread has 48 replies. Displaying posts 16 through 30.
Post 16 made on Thursday July 21, 2016 at 10:22
BizarroTerl
Active Member
Joined:
Posts:
October 2002
591
I think URC may have learned from CCP. I think they started to lock down availability when they saw that catering to the CI market was in their best interest. Compromises were made and we now have the situation we're in.

My understanding is that the Total Control software is only available to approved CIs with no consumer access.

CCP is old (and IMHO, very poorly written) and apparently Total Control is the future
Post 17 made on Thursday July 21, 2016 at 10:45
BizarroTerl
Active Member
Joined:
Posts:
October 2002
591
SRTShaker,
Great price you got on that MX-5000. As you start to program it post your questions here. I've been using the MX-5000 for about 6 years now and it has turned out to be the ideal remote. You don't need a base station for IP controllable devices, it is fast and it is reliable. I have 3 of them and they still look/function as new (non smoking/no kids environment).
Post 18 made on Thursday July 21, 2016 at 11:52
bobli
Long Time Member
Joined:
Posts:
December 2002
263
"it is fast and it is reliable"? This isn't something I've heard regarding the MX-5000. In late 2014, I was searching for a replacement for my ancient MX-3000 and I strongly considered the MX-5000. While it lacks a numerical keypad, and the colored buttons, I was very interested in the ability to control IP devices, however, the feedback I received when asking for opinions on a replacement generally stated the MX-5000 was slow with the biggest problem being lag time (i.e. you pick up the remote and then have to wait for it to have network access before you can issue commands). Do you feel this is an incorrect assessment of the MX-5000? Ultimately, I decided to go with the MX-1200. It works very well, however, today all of my equipment is IP controllable and having a remote that could control the equipment via IP, without a base station, and without emitters, would be fantastic.
Post 19 made on Thursday July 21, 2016 at 12:55
SRTShaker
Long Time Member
Joined:
Posts:
June 2016
55
I adore my MX-1200 and RF station. I have it controlling my entire setup. Denon X7200WA, 80" 3D TV, Dune Solo 4K, Dune Base 3.0, KDLinks A300, HT Gaming PC, Amazon Fire TV, X10 Lighting. It has performed well for the last few weeks. Just finished with it. I had to modify/create custom device icons and TV Station channel icons. The stock were ugly to me. All in all it took about 12 hours to complete. Very happy. I wish URC would change their policy and release/sell their software to the masses. Most DIY users are more than capable to program them and forums like this and AVS will provide more than enough support. I really do despise Harmony remotes and my Prontos were getting old so I had to find a replacement. URC fit the bill nicely. If it comes down to it I may just become a dealer. The cost is not that expensive and I could integrate into my business quickly enough.

With regard to CCP, I didn't have any issues with it. It seems stable, very easy to learn, doesn't require the internet, allows local backup of images and has really cool remote support!

Last edited by SRTShaker on July 21, 2016 13:28.
I've paid for my sins. We're even!
Post 20 made on Thursday July 21, 2016 at 13:39
SRTShaker
Long Time Member
Joined:
Posts:
June 2016
55
On July 21, 2016 at 10:45, BizarroTerl said...
SRTShaker,
Great price you got on that MX-5000. As you start to program it post your questions here. I've been using the MX-5000 for about 6 years now and it has turned out to be the ideal remote. You don't need a base station for IP controllable devices, it is fast and it is reliable. I have 3 of them and they still look/function as new (non smoking/no kids environment).

I purchased it just because it was a good deal. I have a couple of big jobs we are rapping up this week or next. It should be here by early next week. I may fiddle with it or try to sell to my higher end clients. Not really sure. I am thrilled with the MX-1200 and really see no need to replace it. Who am I kidding... I plan to open the box as soon as UPS pulls up in front.... Sort of like the fat kid chasing the Ice Cream Truck! LOL!
I've paid for my sins. We're even!
Post 21 made on Saturday July 23, 2016 at 17:52
BizarroTerl
Active Member
Joined:
Posts:
October 2002
591
On July 21, 2016 at 11:52, bobli said...
"it is fast and it is reliable"? This isn't something I've heard regarding the MX-5000. In late 2014, I was searching for a replacement for my ancient MX-3000 and I strongly considered the MX-5000. While it lacks a numerical keypad, and the colored buttons, I was very interested in the ability to control IP devices, however, the feedback I received when asking for opinions on a replacement generally stated the MX-5000 was slow with the biggest problem being lag time (i.e. you pick up the remote and then have to wait for it to have network access before you can issue commands). Do you feel this is an incorrect assessment of the MX-5000? Ultimately, I decided to go with the MX-1200. It works very well, however, today all of my equipment is IP controllable and having a remote that could control the equipment via IP, without a base station, and without emitters, would be fantastic.

There is a lag. If I pick it up and start tapping the button I can get the 1st or 2nd taps not going through. This is if I start hitting it fast. I don't find it noticeable unless I'm in a real rush. After the slight initial delay it is then much faster and much more reliable than using a base station ie MS400. When I was using a MS400 it would usually miss the first tap and if I wanted to go fast (ie tapping the up or down key to quickly go through a list) it could miss every other (sometimes more) tap. Comparing a MX-5000 controlling a Tivo or Kodi box via RF (through a MS400) and via IP is a night and day difference.

Part of making this happen is in the settings of the MX-5000. You need to set the sleep timers properly. You also need a good, solid WAP/router that is set up properly.
Post 22 made on Sunday July 24, 2016 at 10:45
bobli
Long Time Member
Joined:
Posts:
December 2002
263
Sounds like the MX-5000 could be worth a try. My MX-1200 is paired with an MSC-400 and it works pretty darn well (I don't seem to have too many missed commands although it does happen more than I'd like). To which settings in the MX-5000 are you referring? Pickup sensor? Some other setting that maybe doesn't exist in the MX-1200? Also, what do sleep timers have to do with improving the MX-5000's performance (I've never used a sleep timer).
Post 23 made on Sunday July 24, 2016 at 11:20
goldenzrule
Loyal Member
Joined:
Posts:
July 2007
8,470
Placing the rfx antenna all but eliminates all interference. I've said it on this forum probably a 100 times. Place it correctly and no issues.

The mx-5000 is not a good remote. Yes it can do some two way and ip control, but it's battery is limited to 4-5 hours, it lacks number buttons, it does lag. If it works for you and you can live with some of its shortcomings, than that is fine. If comparing to a rf remote and you claim it is more reliable, than you simply have not setup the rf properly. I've been working with urc for over 10 years without any rf issues.
Post 24 made on Sunday July 24, 2016 at 12:37
BizarroTerl
Active Member
Joined:
Posts:
October 2002
591
On July 24, 2016 at 10:45, bobli said...
Sounds like the MX-5000 could be worth a try. My MX-1200 is paired with an MSC-400 and it works pretty darn well (I don't seem to have too many missed commands although it does happen more than I'd like). To which settings in the MX-5000 are you referring? Pickup sensor? Some other setting that maybe doesn't exist in the MX-1200? Also, what do sleep timers have to do with improving the MX-5000's performance (I've never used a sleep timer).

Under sleep settings I have Turn off if not used for to 3 mins. Keep wifi connected is 30 mins. As goldenzrule says, it'll run for 4-5 hours off charger. Perhaps I didn't have the RF set up properly. I had line of sight but it was through a glass cabinet door. Wasn't going to move the antenna so it was sticking up out in the open. As for other RF settings, I never found anything other than the channel on the remote/MS400. The only interference vectors are 1.9Ghz phone (10' and 25' away from the RF antennas) and wifi.

The only lag I see with the MX-5000 is when you initially wake (after the wifi goes to sleep).
Post 25 made on Monday July 25, 2016 at 11:16
bobli
Long Time Member
Joined:
Posts:
December 2002
263
On July 24, 2016 at 11:20, goldenzrule said...
Placing the rfx antenna all but eliminates all interference. I've said it on this forum probably a 100 times. Place it correctly and no issues.

My RF performance is very good but not perfect, I don't see any interference on the RF antenna but I certainly don't see 100% reliability, do you? I'm probably getting 95%, maybe a little better. Sometimes I will initiate a macro, all of which are stored in my MSC-400, and the only thing that happens is the MX-1200 changes pages (i.e. no commands are issued). This usually doesn't happen but it's not an extremely rare event either. Same thing with individual commands stored in the remote.

As for the MX-5000, I've heard far more bad than good and, at this point, it's discontinued so considering using it is not really an option. I'd love to see URC bring out a reliable IP based remote and make it available to end users (part of Complete Control). I'm not aware of any way to integrate IP based commands for an end user other than using a phone or tablet along with URC's mobile app. For me, this has no appeal as I don't want an entirely touch based approach. Maybe there's just no demand for an IP based remote with hard keys? With so much equipment now utilizing IP commands, this type of remote seems very desirable, but since I don't know of any, by any manufacturer, I guess it's not.
Post 26 made on Monday July 25, 2016 at 11:47
5l1v3r
Long Time Member
Joined:
Posts:
June 2016
16
back to the original thread. Any niche business the Internet has infiltrated - the Internet has conquered. Sort of like the Borg in Star Trek. It's best not to fight the innovation but rather embrace it and re-innovate. Pivot.
CCP is just a tool. That's all. Home automation is the future and it seems to be flourishing. For example, look at many futuristic movies. People love the concept. Demolition man, Total Recall. People dream of that stuff.

CCP is a horse buggy whip. Its just a tool. Home enthusiasts who have it will probably be the ones who further the "business" anyway. People will want complete home integration and if a company keeps its ears close to the ground and provides innovative service at reasonable prices - then forget CCP. Its just a tool. Give it out. It does not matter. Press on with the innovation/value concept and jobs will come to you.
That's what toys are for...
Post 27 made on Monday July 25, 2016 at 22:19
goldenzrule
Loyal Member
Joined:
Posts:
July 2007
8,470
On July 25, 2016 at 11:16, bobli said...
My RF performance is very good but not perfect, I don't see any interference on the RF antenna but I certainly don't see 100% reliability, do you? I'm probably getting 95%, maybe a little better. Sometimes I will initiate a macro, all of which are stored in my MSC-400, and the only thing that happens is the MX-1200 changes pages (i.e. no commands are issued). This usually doesn't happen but it's not an extremely rare event either. Same thing with individual commands stored in the remote.

As for the MX-5000, I've heard far more bad than good and, at this point, it's discontinued so considering using it is not really an option. I'd love to see URC bring out a reliable IP based remote and make it available to end users (part of Complete Control). I'm not aware of any way to integrate IP based commands for an end user other than using a phone or tablet along with URC's mobile app. For me, this has no appeal as I don't want an entirely touch based approach. Maybe there's just no demand for an IP based remote with hard keys? With so much equipment now utilizing IP commands, this type of remote seems very desirable, but since I don't know of any, by any manufacturer, I guess it's not.

100% reliability.
Post 28 made on Tuesday July 26, 2016 at 00:17
edmund
Elite Member
Joined:
Posts:
April 2002
13,838
On July 25, 2016 at 11:47, 5l1v3r said...
back to the original thread. Any niche business the Internet has infiltrated - the Internet has conquered. Sort of like the Borg in Star Trek. It's best not to fight the innovation but rather embrace it and re-innovate. Pivot.
CCP is just a tool. That's all. Home automation is the future and it seems to be flourishing. For example, look at many futuristic movies. People love the concept. Demolition man, Total Recall. People dream of that stuff.

CCP is a horse buggy whip. Its just a tool. Home enthusiasts who have it will probably be the ones who further the "business" anyway. People will want complete home integration and if a company keeps its ears close to the ground and provides innovative service at reasonable prices - then forget CCP. Its just a tool. Give it out. It does not matter. Press on with the innovation/value concept and jobs will come to you.

When do get the three Seashells?
Post 29 made on Wednesday July 27, 2016 at 07:51
davet2020
Senior Member
Joined:
Posts:
February 2005
1,051
On July 20, 2016 at 10:11, SRTShaker said...
^^^^^
Did you even read my post? URCs policy is poorly enforced. Some dealers give out the software, some do not. Sometimes URC makes exceptions, sometimes not. That is what I am saying, URC is the real issue here, not the consumers. The resale value of the remotes are very poor due the stigma of obtaining the CCP. I just purchased a MX-5000 NIB on ebay for $ 124.00. That is a $ 1000 remote in Best Buy. The smart consumer benefits be buying wisely and putting his time in. As far as hiring a "pro" to program something as simple as this remote. It is never going to happen in my circles. So lost revenue is a non issue, since they were not getting it anyway. It is obvious we differ in opinion and that is what makes this forum great. Let us leave it at that.

FYI.. In my tenure as a Defense Contractor many companies tried over the years to bid and win the contracts that I was awarded over and over again. They were not successful. The reason was simply, the automation systems I designed were very complex, in accordance with ABS and Coast Guard guidelines, and took years to get all the approvals required for US Navy Mil Specs. EE degrees were required just to view the bid requirements, the prospective bidders had to be certified by my company to even bid the contracts and had to pass my 2 year certification program. Some passed, many did not. The Navy felt who better to maintain the Automation Systems than the man who designed, built and installed them. That would be me and my company. All my employees were EEs and all signed confidentiality and non compete agreements. The policies laid out were Strictly enforced by the US Navy and Dept of Defense. The integrity of my Automation Systems were meticulously maintained over the years and the Naval Vessels safety and performance record reflects that.

URC does not do this and that is the point I am trying to convey.
URC doesn't properly enforce its own policy and the consumers exploit this. It is not illegal, though perhaps morally wrong. It just is what it is. It is too open ended.

A major reason URC stopped handing out CCP software with their remotes was because of the time spent and money spent on tech support for people who bought the remote and had no clue on what they were doing. SRTShaker and other like him with an IT background can grasp what is necessary but that does not mean that the average Joe is going to be able to understand it.

Then when the remote did not work like they wanted they gave up and would go on-line and tell everyone about what a crappy remote it was.

I doubt whether your previous company would have liked to support a tech support department getting questions asked by Navy personnel with no knowledge of automation systems.
If you are going to do the job...why not do it the right way?
www.fairfaxavi.com
Post 30 made on Thursday July 28, 2016 at 11:01
SRTShaker
Long Time Member
Joined:
Posts:
June 2016
55
@BizarroTerl
What does the expansion pack add to CCP with regard to the MX-5000? Best buy was clueless when I asked my rep.
I've paid for my sins. We're even!
Find in this thread:
Page 2 of 4


Jump to


Protected Feature Before you can reply to a message...
You must first register for a Remote Central user account - it's fast and free! Or, if you already have an account, please login now.

Please read the following: Unsolicited commercial advertisements are absolutely not permitted on this forum. Other private buy & sell messages should be posted to our Marketplace. For information on how to advertise your service or product click here. Remote Central reserves the right to remove or modify any post that is deemed inappropriate.

Hosting Services by ipHouse