The universal browser is the best way I know to get pronto hex into an MX remote. Although I think I could understand the browser better, I just bring one hex code into it and drag it across to a button.

When I am doing an entire device, I'll usually open ProntoEdit and just drop the hex codes into a device there. I am familiar with it and then I open the *CCF file in the universal browser and drag codes. There may be a more efficient way, but this has worked repeatedly for me, most recently to get all the on/off and input codes from an RTI AD4 amp into an MX5000. So I know it works.

So I get this Atlantic Technology Power Bar 235 and the codes on their website just do not work. Another poster had remarked that he could not make them work either. Made a *CCF file and opened it in the universal browser, drag the codes, NONE work.

For grins, I took the same hex codes and using Integration Designer, made a new remote there. Loaded a T2c and every button works. Every one. Took the T2c and put the MX880 in learn mode. While the hex would not work in CCP and the MX880, learning the codes from the T2c DID work. Every one.

There must be some CCP or MX880 issue here. I haven't had time to open the *CCF file and load the buttons into an MX5000 yet. But it occurred to me that last year, I had tried to load some Atlona codes from their website into an MX880 and was also unsuccessful. Both times, MX880s. When time allows, I am going to try to load the Atlona codes (for the itty bitty amplifier) into the T2c and give it a whirl.

I wanted to open this thread here to see if there is something that is CCP related or is it just certain remotes have trouble bringing hex in? Looking for feedback from others...

Same problem trying to make the h-pas hex codes work with an mx900. I spoke with tech support at Atlantic, and he said another person called with same issue. Apparently this is a urc issue, as those hex codes work with other remotes, so no help there. I'm going to attempt loading the hex codes into an Elan system, program the remote, and then learn directly from the Elan remote to the mx900.

Mark.

EDIT: Sorry, I posted this to the wrong thread. Too many windows open!

So, what's up with the "professional" saying you cannot have a multizone install without having a different file installed on each remote! This seems like a labor intensive way to do things to say the least!

I too use duplicate MX-900's programmed with the SAME file. It makes a lot more sense to do things that way as my wife may carry a remote off from one room to the next. When this happens all she needs to do is go back to the main screen (I called it Home) and select whatever room she is in.

A system is much more manageable this way (provided you do not have over 40 devices as this is the limit of the MX-900). It would be stupid to program 7 remotes differently unless there was a distinct need (e.g. fear that two people would push a button at the same time, etc...). I guess if the customer pays for labor and you do not understand the technology, why not right?

I interface a home automation system with the MSC-400 (the MSC-400 is too dumb of a device for me to let it control things on its own). This thread has a lot of explanation and a great overview of my system:
[Link: cocoontech.com]

The FREE program I use is called Motorola Premise Home Control. It's completely free and many times more powerful and stable than any software URC has ever put out! I know as I've used both extensively.

I too believe in the long-term URC will have a problem existing if they don't change. For $120 or less anyone can buy a network based Global Cache controller and interface it with RS232 or IR devices large number of free PC applications and/or android apps to control all kinds of stuff. Folks are dreaming that the MSC-400 and other URC controllers aren't going to cost more than they are worth, resulting in the demise of URC. The GC-100 controller actually had two-way RS232 10 years ago!

URC can't even manage to release an SDK so integrators can write fully customizeable two-way RS232 or IP based interfaces either. This is stuff American companies were doing 10+ years ago! There really needs to be a simple way to do this in their URC Accelerator software.

So, what does URC do about this limitation? Instead of giving sytems integrators a great RF remote that has low power consumption and full two-way communications with something I can integrate with other main stream systems, they try to branch into areas like whole home automation when that market is already saturated with companies who do it a lot better than they do (and for much less money too)!

Seems kind of funny that a company who can't correctly fix a repeat command bug on the MSC-400 after almost 10 years (don't you love doing a work around each time due to URC's shoddy design work?), or even publish a Vista or Windows 7 driver for the MSC-400 which they still sale will ever survive. Based on my past experience with URC, I have to wonder if they could ever produce a reliable and well designed whole home automation line.

Don't get me wrong, URC makes great Korean made (not Chinese) remotes that feel great in the hand and are nice (but over priced). However, since they keep releasing touch screens, lighting, and multi-zone music systesm I have to wonder if they even realize what they are good at? Why not truly perfect what you are good at and try to lower costs in that arena to gain more market share?

Don't get me wrong, I hope fewer URC dealers throw in the towel this year than in previous years. I like having more competition in the market place. The last thing anyone wants is another controls company to go under as this would severely limit choice at this point.

First off, this "plug" post should be removed. Obviously this is a pathetic attempt to bash URC while calling attention to his business. While URC does have some shortcomings in the form of software they are in a great position to have a large increase in sales due to the demise of harmony. None of the issues you speak of affect the Total Control system.

Get over yourself. The only thing pathetic are folks like yourself who jump to conclusions without stopping to think! I accidentally posted to the wrong thread. Sue me.

PS: Learn about what you sell before bashing folks. Please tell me how to make a CUSTOM two-way driver for a Total Control system (and don't tell me some crap like oh, it's in beta)... 

This lack of two-way control for integration with other HA systems is a huge downfall to URC, but believe what you want... Some of us do real integration and need more openness (and less software "work arounds" to a poorly designed system).

PS: Tell everyone you know not to do business with this rude person (I think his name is Vincent Bova):

[email protected]

Vincent Bova
Monroe Township, NJ 08831
(848) 333-7337
http://www.totalcontrolremotes.com

I'd like to know what your "technical" qualifications are anyways. Looking at your website with some random pictures of remotes for the gallery, it looks pretty pathetic if you ask me. Most legit places aren't afraid to show their work. Are you even licensed to do low voltage work in NJ?

It looks like Vincent really has issues... Look at the PM he sent me?!?

Pretty funny. Who said I had a company (because I don't) and who said a software product that Motorola bought for several million and has made free was made by me?

I wish I had thought of Premise, but I'm just an end user who likes to do custom integration for myself! I know, those evil end users posting on an open community with links to free software to help others...