Feature Request: Notify when there is a tuner conflict

Channels DVR Server
#45

Here is a thread discussing KT-700 (and CM-7777)

It seems CM-7777 is a solid preamp but people claim KT-700 to be a bit better. It has a very low noise figure which helps with reception. Might be worth a shot.

EDIT: It seems KT-200 might be better for your case

The KT-200 is a fixed gain (24db) TV amplifier with an ultra low noise figure of .4db. The KT-200 is a good choice for medium to very long distance TV reception. This amplifier was designed to help with those weak hard to get channels. Our goal, when designing this amplifier, was to have the lowest possible noise figure. It is designed for use in rural areas without strong transmitters near by. The KT-200 also has a built in FM filter for improved VHF reception.

http://www.kitztech.com/KT200.html

10 Day Money Back Guarantee

#46

While I certainly understand and appreciate where you're coming from, this isn't a great argument in this forum, considering the sagas of other features that eventually arrived after years of requests, features we came to expect as basic functionality on other DVRs and video library platforms, like... the CLOCK. The ability to import videos other than TV and movies, too, as well as editing their metadata editing. And more.

I'm guessing none of these features are easy to implement, in fact, most of them are probably quite difficult, but obviously none of them are impossible. I'm happy to read that the Channel devs agree, and are interesting in doing more in this regard, and improving our ability to work around recording conflicts and running out of tuners.

#47

Who knows why it hasn't been implemented. I'm sure the Channels developers have a big TODO list with other requests that have been around for a long time. They have to prioritize. But as I've said before, every other DVR has figured out a solution. It's just not that hard. As I've said before you just have to look at the guide which flags all the shows to be recorded and shows the overlaps, all the data needed is already there.

I'm not in the business of writing DVR software. That's the job of the Channels developers. The standard isn't what I can do, but what other DVR software writers have already done.

Because the reasons you cite just don't hold water, as I've pointed out before. For example, you keep saying it's so hard yet every other DVR has a solution. Where's your argument against that? I happen to think the Channels developer team is pretty top notch, believe me I've seen some pretty bad DVR software. Certainly the Channels team can handle the job if everybody else already has.

But to be honest I suppose that what really got me upset was the "solution" proposed, which was that we all spend $200 for another SD tuner. That's not really your doing. I guess $200 is pocket change for some, it's not for me. It's probably not for other people as well. A big reason why I put up an OTA antenna and paid for a Channels subscription was because it would save me money in the long run over a cable service of some kind just to get the locals.

#48

It's worth noting that the customer who offered that as a "solution" also complained that his remote Channels DVR experience was suffering with his dial-up internet speeds, and also that Channels DVR was alerting him about how little disk space he had left. Of course both issues would also be "fixed" by throwing his own money at the problem (getting faster internet, adding a new/bigger hard drive.)

So my advice would be to take his "contributions" with a grain of salt, and to pay closer attention to what the actual developers say, and do.

#49

I was hoping you would lay it off after our recent exchange. Let's say you are not being very nuanced. :kissing_heart:

#50

Thank you. You may find extensive DVR conflict resolution to be some of the most complicated software solutions you've ever tackled. SageTV does quite well with it, and even it falls down a bit once in a while - if only its code were open source. At the end of the day, Channels DVR would probably need to adopt a more server centered approach to all TV watching, along with use of a tuner or tuners (for example, taking exclusive control of just 2 out of 4 tuners in an HDHR Quad OTA, leaving the user to decide what to do with the other 2 tuners).

#52

Bill Gates did it when he was in high school:

Bill Gates - Lakeside School - Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

Of course, a whole new dimension of relevance came when I was asked to do a computerized class schedule for the high school.
It was complex, but ultimately very rewarding. By the time I was done, I found that I had no classes at all on Fridays. And even better, there was a disproportionate number of interesting girls in all my classes.

#53

Well, yes, there is that dimension of software development LOL

#54

Don't flatter yourself :wink:
You can watch The Zero Theorem if you want to know why.

#55

As everyone replies to this thread, I do hope they are understanding the default situation, yes? That every client that tunes for a live session reduces the number of tuners by one?

Channels does own their server and client software, right?

So why can't I set a mode to change the default behavior of today and instead of the clients having this free for all mentality with tuners, I give the server priority to the tuners FIRST. In this mode before the clients make some dumb assumption and just grab a tuner they would instead query the server FIRST to see if there is a free tuner?

This is what the cable company, Tivo and other boxes do. It's just all inside of one box.

This pretending that the clients can only live in a vacuum and are totally ignorant of what is going on in the network or with the tuners is absurd. That may be the way it is today, but it certainly does not have to be that way just because there is split functionality. Split functionality can still be coordinated.

I understand that weaving that coordination into Channels might be more work than is feasible right now - and the devs have pretty much said as much. Fair enough. Stop gaslighting people that it's impossible because of the nature of the clients; it's not - it's just not a priority of the devs which is fair enough. There's never enough time for all the features.

Indeed, I just realized Youtube TV does have my local stations (Las Vegas) and thus local news. If I can figure out why those aren't showing up in channels then I don't need the HD HomeRun and this "problem" goes away for me in the best way possible. Turns out an even easier way to avoid tuner conflicts is to not even need tuners in the first place :slight_smile:

#56

You can: the feature is called "Tuner Sharing". It is off by default (in the clients) because it diminishes the quality of the UX for clients. Part of Channels awesome UX is their super-responsive tuning; this is not available if tuner sharing is enabled.

There has never been a statement that it is impossible. The reason it doesn't work this way—server first—is because that's the way the software was written. There has never been an effort to hide this fact. To enable a feature is a massive engineering/refactoring effort. Also, such a change would against diminish one of the software's hallmarks.

If you can solve the ins and outs of carriage agreements, I think you have a very lucrative job waiting for you. But since you're muddling through, I think you realize that reality is far more complicated than your small view affords you.

#57

The tuners are independent of ChannelsDVR and will accept a request from any client. The simple solution is to buy tuners for live viewing and maintain a separate set of tuners for exclusive use by ChannelsDVR. This way ChannelsDVR has exclusive use of the tuners and scheduling is predictable. Live users can connect to a separate set of tuners dedicated to live viewing. This is a possible solution that ChannelsDVR can implement.

I do not do any live viewing. Everything I watch is taped in order to avoid commercials. I would appreciate ChannelsDVR displaying its planned per tuner scheduling. Since I know all tuners will always be available to ChannelsDVR I can be confident that the schedule will be implemented as planned.

ChannelsDVR should assume that it has exclusive control of the tuners. In order to maintain predictable scheduling, live viewers should use HDHomeRun software with separate tuner box.

#58

I was going to respond to this, but frankly discussions about control and the architecture of Channels are, ultimately, irrelevant. Let's just stick to the facts - the software isn't likely to work that way any time soon, if ever. In the meantime there is an immediate solution with the two tuner setup and here's how to do it.

That's what would be more helpful so threads like this don't keep happening - skip the discussions and just have a help document that explains that it takes time to add new features and this isn't a priority and likely to not be solved any time soon, then offer instructions on how to set up multiple tuners if it is still that important to the user? Coming from the devs it should help tamp down most of the discussions.

Users may not like that answer (ha!) but at least a solution does exist if it's important enough to someone. That's a damn site better than most companies offer. All going round in circles about the technical in's and outs does is potentially drive people off and that's the last thing I want since I want channels to be around for the long haul!

#59

So you have the holy grail?! And you haven't dominated the DVR software space on your own yet?!

#60

The software certainly won’t act like this if people don't make requests. The more people who request this feature the more likely it will be implemented. Everyone who wants this feature should reply to this thread often.

1 Like
#61

So discussions about Channels' underpinnings don't count because ... you say so…?

Why should there exist a help article stating how the development process works?

Further, the process for additional tuners is the same as for a single tuner; no additional instructions needed.

#62

Your account is new here, but you seem to be highly opinionated. Perhaps you should mingle amongst the community before you try to take a leadership role, and then see how your stands are received by the community …

#63

“A leadership role?” Huh? What a weird response.

2 Likes
#64

Yikes - this whole discussion became nonsense quickly.
This one isn't hard, guys.

  1. There is nothing stopping the devs from prioritizing some conflict resolution piece that assumes Channels has tuner exclusivity. Compared to the efforts to guarantee exclusivity and whatnot, it would be simple, and It would probably satisfy 90+% of users, but...
  2. ...it's not a particularly high-quality addition. If someone is using one of the finite tuners for OTA or CC, the whole thing falls over, and "conflict resolution" is deemed a failure.

Honestly, the work around TVE and multiple tuner management is the best feature of channels, IMHO, and i can understand why that would stand on its own, but i can understand those with no locals on TVE (for example) not being satisfied there.

#65

The simple 90 percent solution should include feedback, after the fact, if one of the tuners was not available. This allows the user to address the problem and is exactly the kind of high-quality solution that 90 percent of users would enjoy. It is only as high-quality as the developers who have already demonstrated the quality of their work.

This is not a request to change the operational behavior of ChannelsDVR. It is a request to provide an option that shows planned per tuner scheduling and notification if a tuner was not available.

Currently, if a tuner is unavailable, the system fails silently (albeit the recording should be rescheduled if possible). This could be considered a "low-quality" solution. Notification of the scheduling failure would greatly increase quality.