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:
Interesting Challenge with URC Remotes
This thread has 47 replies. Displaying posts 16 through 30.
Post 16 made on Friday December 28, 2012 at 20:51
Hertz
Active Member
Joined:
Posts:
December 2007
657
Don't forget they might not be able to pull the programming from the msc. Requiring a full reprogramming anyways.
Post 17 made on Friday December 28, 2012 at 22:06
fonzanoon
Active Member
Joined:
Posts:
March 2007
646
On December 28, 2012 at 15:03, tweeterguy said...
Refer to my earlier post as to why you are being quoted so high. I will further expand this by pointing out that a new programmer, coming in to take over what someone else did, initially has no idea how it was programmed or if indeed everything is working correctly or up to their standards. That requires research into the system design and connectivity and oftentimes breaking it down to the basics and starting from scratch. That takes time, time is money. The other justification is this...as soon as the new programmer touches your system, he's on the hook for it, its changes and oftentimes in the clients mind anything that happens down the road whether it's related to the programming change or not. The willingness to accept ownership involves risk; accepting the future risk is often mitigated by collecting payment in advance to cover such risk in the future.

VERY well said!
Cedia Certified King of the Ring
OP | Post 18 made on Saturday December 29, 2012 at 01:55
conroyw
Long Time Member
Joined:
Posts:
November 2010
17
I did mention I had the configuration program and files didn't I.  My comment of each remote being a clone is based on reverse engineering the configuration of each remote, in addition to downloading and reverse engineering the configuration of the MSC 400 master and slave unit.  As I get ready to change the configuration of the remotes I will continue to look for any differences in configuration.  So far I haven't found any.

I appreciate your comments but you failed to catch the basic theme of comment.  I am a professional programmer and am aware how difficult it is to reverse engineering someone else work.  The tools Universal provides professional installers are archaic and poorly designed to support you.  Lacking something as basic as a print function or the ability to export a configuration into a standardized format such as XML makes these devices extremely time intensive (expensive) to reverse engineer. Point of my comment was that some standardization or tools need to be built to support these types of devices or this business will go the way of the dodo.  Requiring $6k or $15k to add a single device due to someone going out of business needs to be factored into the cost of bulding a custon system.  

More sophisticated tools capable of configuration automation and reverse engineering will be built or custom solutions like the URC line will become irrelevant.  Professional programmers, such as myself, will use devices with open architectures and sophisticated tools to build interfaces that do not require closed end custom tools that leave no options.  Each of the new devices (TVs, Audio systems, video switchers, and Network to IR devices) are being delivered with TCP/IP stacks on the devices, excellent wireless network speeds, and devices with IP and bluetooth connectiviy such as the android and iPhone provide a very sophisticated infrastructure to eliminate these remotes and their supporting infrastructure.

If you think I am clueless look at the capabilities of the current flat panel TVs.  Most come with TCP/IP connections, Netflix, Pandora, uUnp streaming capability etc.  My HAI OmniPro II controller already controls my Russound Cav/Cam controllers through my Ipad using TCP/IP.  Only thing I use the URC remotes and MSC devices for is to control the Key-Digital Video switchers.   Their primary value is the large equipment lookup tables containing the codes to be sent out through the serial or ir ports. I would like to reuse as much of what is currently in my home until I am forced to change direction.  
Post 19 made on Saturday December 29, 2012 at 02:01
Presinium
Long Time Member
Joined:
Posts:
September 2011
53
Why not just use the huge button on their front page that says "DEALER LOCATOR"?

[Link: universalremote.com]
Josh Edman
Los Angeles, CA
(888) 415 - 5855
Post 20 made on Saturday December 29, 2012 at 02:12
Presinium
Long Time Member
Joined:
Posts:
September 2011
53
I appreciate your comments but you failed to catch the basic theme of comment.  I am a professional programmer and am aware how difficult it is to reverse engineering someone else work.  The tools Universal provides professional installers are archaic and poorly designed to support you.  Lacking something as basic as a print function or the ability to export a configuration into a standardized format such as XML makes these devices extremely time intensive (expensive) to reverse engineer. Point of my comment was that some standardization or tools need to be built to support these types of devices or this business will go the way of the dodo.  Requiring $6k or $15k to add a single device due to someone going out of business needs to be factored into the cost of bulding a custon system.  

Yes, I have a great product line that supports everything you are talking about... want a proposal on it? I love selling Crestron systems :-).

I don't care how advanced it is, $15,000 is crazy and if you are saying that you are just adding a DVR - I am sorry but there is absolutely no possible way Best Buy quoted you $15,000 just for that... there is quite obviously more to this story... Some sort of other changes you were implying that you would need or the guy just unfortunately not being educated enough to provide an accurate quote...

If you came to me and had a super complex system and wanted to change one device to another it'd probably end up being $300 but I'd have it in writing that I take no responsibility for the quality of the system unless you reprogram which would easily approach the $6k-$8k figure... I'm sure they did the same thing and made you feel that there was no other option but to start over as part of their sales pitch... which is the smart thing to do but not necessary.

More sophisticated tools capable of configuration automation and reverse engineering will be built or custom solutions like the URC line will become irrelevant.  Professional programmers, such as myself, will use devices with open architectures and sophisticated tools to build interfaces that do not require closed end custom tools that leave no options.  Each of the new devices (TVs, Audio systems, video switchers, and Network to IR devices) are being delivered with TCP/IP stacks on the devices, excellent wireless network speeds, and devices with IP and bluetooth connectiviy such as the android and iPhone provide a very sophisticated infrastructure to eliminate these remotes and their supporting infrastructure.

Yeah go buy RedEye or Roomie Remote, enjoy :-). Bottom line there isn't enough profit to have an open architecture programming as you speak of... URC's tools make it 100x easier... I program PHP, C+, Java, Crestron, HTML, XML, TCL, and others... I would NEVER sell a URC remote if it had something similar... not for the price point they go for... I can only imagine they would sell about 80-90% less product if they had it that way... YOU may want it, but as a whole it'd be a terrible idea.

That being said, if you are a programmer, I'm sure you would rather have it be so that when you write on a forum you have to write it out in PHP as well.. I mean it does provide more freedom... this whole WYSIWIG thing is sooooooo old and terrible! I bet you noone will use forms or websites once someone releases a browser that requires you to program to use...

If you think I am clueless look at the capabilities of the current flat panel TVs.  Most come with TCP/IP connections, Netflix, Pandora, uUnp streaming capability etc.  My HAI OmniPro II controller already controls my Russound Cav/Cam controllers through my Ipad using TCP/IP.  Only thing I use the URC remotes and MSC devices for is to control the Key-Digital Video switchers.   Their primary value is the large equipment lookup tables containing the codes to be sent out through the serial or ir ports. I would like to reuse as much of what is currently in my home until I am forced to change direction.  

Have fun trying to access that TCP/IP port - this industry isn't as open as yours... you are assuming it's all the same as the "programming world" - it's not. While it is starting to open up, great... but then you add the fact that WiFi in general isn't reliable enough to control your television...

Imagine if it was all TCP/IP and your router crashed on you while you were watching TV... now you need to turn your system off or mute it to answer the phone or any other multitude of things... now imagine you aren't as "tech savvy" as you claim to be so you couldn't even turn it off on your own...NO THANK YOU, not until Ruckus-quality products are $100 and everywhere.

URC, RTI, and others build products that are needed... there are PLENTY of options that give you the open architecture you are requesting...

Enjoy! http://www.commandfusion.com/
Josh Edman
Los Angeles, CA
(888) 415 - 5855
OP | Post 21 made on Saturday December 29, 2012 at 02:17
conroyw
Long Time Member
Joined:
Posts:
November 2010
17
I have and will let you know how that works out.  Comments about the utility of the tools and ther driving the price remain.
Post 22 made on Saturday December 29, 2012 at 02:34
Presinium
Long Time Member
Joined:
Posts:
September 2011
53
#include<iostream.h>
int main ()
{
cout << "Good Luck and Enjoy!";
return 0;
}
Josh Edman
Los Angeles, CA
(888) 415 - 5855
OP | Post 23 made on Saturday December 29, 2012 at 02:44
conroyw
Long Time Member
Joined:
Posts:
November 2010
17
Apparently I hit a nerve.  My discussion with Best Buy went exactly the way I described it.  

As to my other comments, I am sorry I offeded you.  Relative to your comments about the liability and desire to limt your liability to assume someone elses code.  I certainly understand the issue and hadn't proceeded to that point with anyone.

You are correcty that current device capability to be controlled via TCP/IP are not capabile of providing the capabilites I envision yet.  Just as HDMI standard was very unstable 5 years ago, the capabilities of these TCP/IP devices will evolve.

I will stop making comments on the thread.  I believe I made my point.  I believe that URC style control devices will disappear if the tools to support the primary risk of a custom system, that of the installer going out of business, aren't addressed.  Your comments about the lack of profit margin in this type of open architecture to small business installers is exactly the force that will drive the changes I have described.  With the TCP/IP stacks on the devices and tablets with GBs of ram and multiple modes of communication, it is a matter of time....

Being a computer professional, with a PhD in computer Science, with 30+ years in my profession, having watched the evolution of multiple technology pltforms 
over the years.  I believe my vision is valid and typical of technology evolution.  

I have reached out to a local company that is a URC Master Certified group.  Hopefully they will be willing to look at the system, and program the device into the system, or work with me to see if I need to make some hard decisions.  If not,  I continue to reverse engineer the existing system, and will begin making changes to bring in the new device.
OP | Post 24 made on Saturday December 29, 2012 at 02:48
conroyw
Long Time Member
Joined:
Posts:
November 2010
17
Final comment.  This was never about cost.  It was about bring told the only option was to reprogram the system from scratch.  There was no desire to look at anything. I had all the original files configurations including the CCP program that did the programming. The Best Buy model is to describe what is desired then offshoring the development.  
Post 25 made on Saturday December 29, 2012 at 03:23
Presinium
Long Time Member
Joined:
Posts:
September 2011
53
No nerve hit - it's just that from the outside, how our business works (and needs to work) is not seen or understood very well.  I understand your feelings and as a programmer if I wasn't apart of this industry I would agree with you, absolutely!

That being said, you are also right that IP will grow - that isn't a possibility that is a 100% fact.  Systems are already evolving... I personally don't even use the "CCP" line of remotes that URC makes I use URC's TC (Total Control) which is 100% network based and I can send TCP/IP commands from all the products even those that don't use WiFi to communicate.  

I also use Crestron and have dabbled in many others (Command Fusion as stated) which provide the open architecture... what I found is that while >I< can make much "cooler" systems that do much "more"... at the end of the day the average consumer never used them and I was not only wasting my time but their money.

If Best Buy told you they "can't" use the files you provided, it's because you had the old-style files and they don't know that it's easy to import those files right into the CCP programming software (it's kind of a counter-intuitive feature in the software that not many people know about).  URC doesn't support the old-style software anymore so they probably "thought" they had to start over... which isn't the case AT ALL.

As I said - if you had all the correct files I would have done it for $300 easy (possibly less) - but I would have to look at that file and make sure the previous programmer wasn't an idiot (and as a programmer, you know looking at anyone elses code has you going "WTF were they thinking" even if it was probably good in other ways).

Good luck. 
Josh Edman
Los Angeles, CA
(888) 415 - 5855
OP | Post 26 made on Saturday December 29, 2012 at 09:41
conroyw
Long Time Member
Joined:
Posts:
November 2010
17
Thanks for the much more rational response.  I have the old CCP files that were used 5 years ago when the house was originally configured. I also have the files from when I had my basement finished last year when they were moved into the CCP configuration.  I paid, again cost was less of an option than staying reasonably current in an industry going through transformational change, to have the files updated and brought up to the current based tools.

The Best Buy guy was an idiot and for a URC expert never even asked what type of files I had or any relevant questions.  You are correct Mike the original tech may have been an idiot programming the system, but looking at the configurations in the ccp program it appears to follow the conventions from the CCP Mx900 and Msc 400 programming guides.  I realize the ccp program hides a lot of the complexity of the configurations but it appears so far to be reasonably straight forward.  He didn't appear to do anything complicated, so simple tree configuration for the menu structure to get to the device pages and for the most part used the default device pages that come from the configuration database.
Post 27 made on Saturday December 29, 2012 at 14:16
Presinium
Long Time Member
Joined:
Posts:
September 2011
53
So if you contacted a Master Dealer it shouldn't be a problem.  A perfect example of one uneducated person claiming to be a "pro" in the control realm screwing with the general perception of us and our industry... :-P
Josh Edman
Los Angeles, CA
(888) 415 - 5855
Post 28 made on Saturday December 29, 2012 at 16:18
tweeterguy
Loyal Member
Joined:
Posts:
June 2005
7,713
Not to mention a perfect example of someone tossing around their credentials and degrees to prove a point they are so wrong about. I don't care what computer science degree you have, where you went to school and how many unrelated languages you code in, those 7 controllers and 2 MSC's do not have identical programming on them, period. If they did, when you were in Bedroom 2 (for instance) you'd be also changing sources/switching in the other rooms as well. There's something called triggers and port routing at play here and if they were all the same your system would have never worked properly plain and simple. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, more often than not in these cases, real world experience trumps book/school knowledge. Hopefully the company you contacted can take care of you without instance (I truly mean that); as situations like this leave a black eye on our industry as whole.
Post 29 made on Saturday December 29, 2012 at 16:49
Presinium
Long Time Member
Joined:
Posts:
September 2011
53
Chris (Tweeterguy) is absolutely right.  

The good news is that with the newer systems out there they are all built to handle "whole home" in a much more efficient way (similar to what you would be used to in a programming environment but still not programming).  This makes it about 10x-100x faster to make tweaks, additions, etc... 

Example: if the same system was built with one of our URC Total Control systems, changing a DVR for me would be less then 5 minutes of programming... not only that, but as your installer I have remote access to reprogram (you just need to go into the remote and set the "Offsite Option" to "ON") so I wouldn't even need to come to the house.

Hell even with Savant I would be able to make those kinds of changes quicker and more reliably - but generally you do pay more upfront so the balance (and overall cost savings) can be hard to see for many customers at the time of purchase.
Josh Edman
Los Angeles, CA
(888) 415 - 5855
Post 30 made on Sunday December 30, 2012 at 11:54
kgossen
Super Member
Joined:
Posts:
March 2008
3,026
On December 28, 2012 at 15:03, tweeterguy said...
First of all, no they are not. They may look similar on the LCD screen but what's happening in the background is different for each zone and is different in reference to each corresponding MSC.

Actually they can be an exact copy. The OP said he chooses the floor then the display then the source. A pain in the ass on 900's but there's no reason they can't all be exactly the same. It all depends on how you configure them. The reason for this is if 1 dies, the customer can then grab any other remote and watch wherever he wants. It also makes upgrading much easier as you're only writing 1 remote file.

Last edited by kgossen on December 30, 2012 12:28.
"Quality isn't expensive, it's Priceless!"
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