Your Universal Remote Control Center
RemoteCentral.com
URC's Consumer Remotes 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 1 of 2
Topic:
No irclone support for URC series
This thread has 28 replies. Displaying posts 1 through 15.
Post 1 made on Friday August 13, 2004 at 02:50
Toxikman
Lurking Member
Joined:
Posts:
July 2004
5
Mike at irclone.com let me know via e-mail that they have no plans to support the URC series. I was hoping since the URC-200/300 appears to have more features than the MX-500, and are targetted toward consumers, there might be more potential customers. I guess time will tell. After looking at the 500e software demo, I can see that it is coded specifically for the MX-500 feature-set, and would probably be a lot of work to update it to work with the URC remotes.
Post 2 made on Friday August 13, 2004 at 14:34
Mitch57
Active Member
Joined:
Posts:
June 2003
722
That's unfortunate. I was planning on purchasing the URC 200/300 if IR-Clone started supporting them. But I am spoiled and like the PC support for my MX-500. I don't think I will ever go back to manually programing a remote again.

Looks like my only choice now if I want to upgrade is to go to the MX-700/800. I don't think I would like the pronto or Harmony remotes.

Maybe someone else will come up with a way to support the URC line via PC interface?
Post 3 made on Friday August 13, 2004 at 15:25
eakf
Long Time Member
Joined:
Posts:
December 2003
369
I'm kind of surprised that Mike and Dave won't further their product to include the new remotes. This would open up a whole new customer base for them.

But I'm also not about to deny that changing the software might be a huge undertaking not worth the time of "hobbyists" like Mike and Dave. I don't know if the IR signals are even compatable with the existing IR-clone.

Perhaps Mike and Dave should sell this concept to HTM for them to market as an add-on.

I'm thankful that they did what they did and I know I'll be using my MX-500 for many more years than I might have because of it. Thanks guys!
god helps those who help themselves.
For the rest of us, there's www.google.com
Post 4 made on Friday August 13, 2004 at 21:21
ejfiii
Select Member
Joined:
Posts:
July 2003
2,021
Guys, Mike and BlueDo have nothing to do with it. HTM has positioned this new line of remotes as a consumer only piece. Therefore, not only are Mike and other authorized HTM sellers not permitted to sell them, nor am I or any other custom installer that sells and programs hundreds of their remotes each year. As an authorized reseller to my clients, I have gone all the way up the food chain at HTM to the top and discussed this with them. There is no changing their mind either. See all those Harmony remotes in Best Buy and other places? Well, pretty soon you'll see a URC200 there too.

E. J.
Post 5 made on Friday August 13, 2004 at 23:07
Mitch57
Active Member
Joined:
Posts:
June 2003
722
I think eakf was referring to Mike and Dave at "IR-Clone" not Mike and Dave at Surfremotecontrol.com and Bluedo.com.

But I'm sure you’re right about HTM not being willing to incorporate this concept as it is a different market. But I also feel that it's very unfortunate that they don't realize that there are a great deal of people, like myself, that would benefit from having computer programmable remotes.

I also understand that they are probably skeptical that by adding this additional function also adds additional costs in tech support. But let's face it! We live in a world of technology that is ever increasing in scope and product.

Are they concerned that they might loose the custom installer base if they offer all their products with PC programmability? Do you know what there thinking is?

Why not target the home user market and offer an alternative for the more advanced user? It seems they already realized this once when the MX-700 was initially only available to custom installers. Now it's available to everyone.

Educate me! What am I missing here?


OP | Post 6 made on Saturday August 14, 2004 at 04:32
Toxikman
Lurking Member
Joined:
Posts:
July 2004
5
I've been a professional Windows programmer for 12 years. I'd be willing to help them out with the software programming. I would enjoy it, and ultimately it would help me program my URC-300 more easily. However, I know nothing about IR hardware signals, so someone else (Mike?) would have to decipher the changes in the URC "clone" protocol and memory layouts.

Anyway, Mike, if you're around, this is an option to consider.
Post 7 made on Saturday August 14, 2004 at 09:08
ejfiii
Select Member
Joined:
Posts:
July 2003
2,021
Man, too many mike's around here, thanks for the straightening out Mitch. As to your question, I have NO IDEA why HTM wont make these new remotes available to custom installers. I can only speak for myself when I say that the 500/600 is WAY to limited and the new URCs would fill the gap perfectly - computer programmable or not.

E. J.
Post 8 made on Saturday August 14, 2004 at 10:49
MikeSRC
Loyal Member
Joined:
Posts:
July 2001
5,958
The really odd part is that distribution of the URC line, which is their Consumer line, is far more restricted than the MX series, which is the Custom line.
www.SurfRemoteControl.com

THX-certified video calibrator and contributing writer, ProjectorReviews.com
Post 9 made on Saturday August 14, 2004 at 13:59
oex
Super Member
Joined:
Posts:
April 2004
4,177
we should thank urc for this - it keeps clients from having EASY access to hi end remotes. Keeps us pro's in demand (For a while anyway)
Diplomacy is the art of saying hire a pro without actually saying hire a pro
Post 10 made on Saturday August 14, 2004 at 19:10
MikeSRC
Loyal Member
Joined:
Posts:
July 2001
5,958
oex, it's the Custom line (MX series) that's widely available anywhere. That doesn't keep your clients from having easy access to these remotes. It's the URC line that's far more protected.
www.SurfRemoteControl.com

THX-certified video calibrator and contributing writer, ProjectorReviews.com
Post 11 made on Saturday August 14, 2004 at 21:53
ejfiii
Select Member
Joined:
Posts:
July 2003
2,021
I agree with Mike (SRC Mike) here. HTM is totaly backwards on this. The 700/800 is available everywhere at less then my clients pay from me while the new URCs are impossible to find.
Post 12 made on Saturday August 14, 2004 at 22:29
Mitch57
Active Member
Joined:
Posts:
June 2003
722
I think HTM needs to regroup and then take a big whiff and smell the coffee! Are they in business to sell products or are they just manufacturing these remotes to show a few of them off to limited distributors to prove what great products they make?
Post 13 made on Monday August 16, 2004 at 21:54
Mike C
Founding Member
Joined:
Posts:
April 2002
224
Hi,

[email protected] writing. It is true that we do not have any plans at this time to support the URC remotes. Dave is not willing to spend many hundreds more hours developing software which is what he has put into the 500e editor. After all one needs a good return on an investment like that. As a result I have not checked out whether the remotes are compatible with Irclone or whether changes are necessary. This is a chicken and egg kind of situation.

Toximan thanks for the offer. If you are interested in spending many hours without a guaranteed return please email me at, [email protected]. For the record we have sold nearly 1200 Irclones!!

Mike
Post 14 made on Monday August 16, 2004 at 22:31
Dundas
Founding Member
Joined:
Posts:
April 2002
321
Mike,
Congratulations on the IRClone sales numbers. I hope that it has been worth your and Dave’s while, financially and otherwise.
I, for one, am very appreciative.
Chip
Post 15 made on Monday August 16, 2004 at 23:00
Bplayer
Long Time Member
Joined:
Posts:
April 2004
19
On 08/17/04 01:54 ET, Mike C said...
[email protected] writing. It is true that we do not
have any plans at this time to support the URC
remotes. Dave is not willing to spend many hundreds
more hours developing software which is what he
has put into the 500e editor.

I am also disappointed that there will be no irclone support. I have recently purchased the URC-200 and hoped that irclone coming which would have been a bonus. Although I have not used an MX-500/600, the coding in irclone should not be too different for the URC. I suppose 3 versions would be required, i.e. URC-100/200/300 which complicates the situation.

The alternative to irclone is a less elegant solution and involves using an OFA or RS to “learn” those special or discrete codes not found on the original equipments’ remote control. A more involved process involves use of JP1.

Here is an example of where it would help me. I have a Sony TV and Receiver and a remote controls for both. The TV remote control has a single on/off button, no discrete. The Receiver remote control knows the discrete code off code for the TV, and uses it as part of an internal macro to turn everything off. The sequence is long and cannot be learned by the URC-200. I need to program this code into a remote and then learn it to my URC-200. This is going to get worse when I get my Denon 2805 and Samsung HLP.
Page 1 of 2


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