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 …
“A leadership role?” Huh? What a weird response.
2 Likes
Yikes - this whole discussion became nonsense quickly.
This one isn't hard, guys.
- 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...
- ...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.
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.