On November 10, 2006 at 13:22, kugie said...
I have seen this problem twice. I agree that it is very
strange that the code would work on its own when you test
the number 6 but not in a macro.
It wouldn't be strange at all if the code were learned badly. It is reasonably common to have a bad learn that works alone and fails in a macro.
But I am quite certain the Pronto Hex for the '6' posted in this thread is NOT a bad learn.
First, I draw from what
you said earlier that other channel macros without the
digit 6 operate normally. If that is the case the durations
are correct
I disagree. These codes are variable length enough that we cannot be sure the same duration or delay that works for every other digit would work for '6'. It's a little far fetched, but I could imagine '6' needing up to 0.2 seconds more duration or more delay than the other digits need.
But it sounds like the testing already described in this thread has covered that (if not, try using .2 seconds more delay for '6' than the minimum that worked for other digits).
If the code doesn't work in a macro, its
bad code.
In general yes. This time no. The posted Pronto Hex is not a bad code.
One more far fetched thing to try. Maybe the device is picky about some combination of the code length and the lead-out. An NG Pronto tends to increase the lead-out a little over what was in the signal it learned from. Most devices don't care, and this one obviously doesn't care for any of the other digits (all with the same lead-out).
But maybe a lower lead-out will help. Try:
0000 0072 0000 0017 0061 0020 0010 0010 0010 0010 0010 0020 0010 0020 0020 0010 0010 0010 0010 0010 0010 0010 0010 0010 0020 0020 0020 0010 0010 0010 0010 0020 0010 0010 0010 0010 0010 0010 0010 0010 0010 0010 0010 0010 0020 0010 0010 0020 0010 0FA0
