Hi there Guys.
I've not posted on here before
Even though I have been a member for ages.
Anyway I have just found that you can download group 2 firmware for the humax. --- PGXTF10020_all.hdf ---- from http://hummy.org.uk/home/index.php?o...&id=2&Itemid=1
I'm not sure if this is legit firmware or not, but their website says
If it is legit then why does Humax not respect their members on the HCSA site and let them download first.

I have download the software and it seems to look the part
will have to wait a couple of days to see if it works.

Why don't you read the forums on the same site as you downloaded it from? Info there might explain

The software is legitimate and released via Humax. It is the same version as used in the current 9200TBX, TS and TB models. It has not been released to a wider audience because it has known problems. An improved version with the bugs fixed is scheduled for OTA broadcast in mid January.

I dont usually read post on at that forum - But your right I should of check there first ---- Cheers for the help

However you need to be aware that it is unfinished software -

half of the people on here screamed for Humax to release something, and then when Humax finally agree to it - there are actually people on this forum telling other people not to use the software (or to turn the FP features off) - rather than reporting the bugs to Humax!

There are a lot of people complaining that the "missus" is getting most upset at the missing of programmes - I would suggest that if there is more than you that relies on the box - use stable software - remember there is no guarantee that the box will behave in the way it should be expected to......

If you start with a pessimistic view - then you get a nice surprise when it works...

From the Selkirk TX we have been running the software since Thursday (last week) and have so far had NO missed recordings....

So far - I am impressed - but I remain sceptical for I know it will miss a recording soon...

Andy

Its funny that you should say that
After all its more likely that the "missus's" are the one's who are relying on the flexibility of the PVR. They are more likely to be using chase play and the recording functions to the extreme to watch their "soaps"
I know that from my personal experience that my wife is recording more programs that me and therefore she is one that notices the bugs.
So to some up what I am saying, woman are more likely to notice the bugs and from that complain to us, we then post the bugs on forums like this. We can but only hope that the people responsible for the PVR development are listing.

.. or even listening

Nice to see you had a lot to contribute soulboy77. A man of few words are you?

Or even the broadcasters who are failing to supply reliable information for the PVR to use.

What about the broadcasters that have said they are not supporting it? They are not supplying unreliable data as they never promised they would.

As accurate-recording is using Now and Next data with no way to make it switchable like PDC, it's down to the manufacturers to ensure their boxes work for all channels. That means allowing us to choose padding or not, without losing the other features they advertise.

Regards

Phil

Are they advertising padding with FP2?

You can have FP2 or auto-padding or FP2 and manual padding!!!

Hi


Exactly you are spot on, you can't have FP2 and manual padding, which is crazy when they must have realised accurate recording is never going to be any such thing.

As you say, we can only hope Humax come to their senses and let us choose to use manual padding while not disabling everything else on FP2.

Regards

Phil

With so many broadcasters, you would think that out of all of them at least a couple of them would be reliable and accurate with the data.

If the data was reliable and accurate from the broadcasters that do support it, then in my opinion humax would have cracked group 2.

Maybe we should do a poll to see which broadcaster comes out top.

The BBC excel in this area, and I think ITV are catching up. All my recordings have been with one or the other, and so far I have to say I'm quite impressed.

For the first time tonight I tested a Channel 4 recording. Channel 4 is or was in the process of updating their metadata, especially series link info. I chose the repeat episode of Shameless, which I had seen before so no problem if it went awry. I was pleasantly surprised; the recording was captured in its entirety with moments before and after the programme included. So well done C4 & Humax in this instance!

I have never said Humax need to come to their senses!

They have a very simple sensible set-up to the software already which meets the FP2 specification.

As an advocate of simplicity ... it strange you wish to force complexity on Humax.

Hi


"Meets the FP2 specification". Again you have an uncanny knack of pointing out the obvious where perhaps you aren't meaning to. Building a user interface is about more than meeting some specification. Humax meet the specification, but don't cater for the human factor, or the reality of how the system works (or doesn't) in the UK.

Also remember, specifications aren't always right, and believe me I know this first hand.


Humax are not the customer we are. Who cares about Humax's complexity, that's there job, that is why they employ programmers and designers and engineers. We just want to be able to use our own padding and not lose the entire Freeview Playback feature set in order to work around the inaccurate data and lack of support for accurate recording.

Keeping it simple means never having introduced accurate recording and real-time data streams in the first place, now we need a method to work around the complexity.

Regards

Phil

The human factor?
Do you mean - the random factor / catch 22 situation?

Why do some channels not broadcast meta data?

Hi


It costs money I think is the simple answer.

Regards

Phil

But even if it cost money surely this is seen as good business, after all you want to attract viewers to your channel, not give them another reason not to watch it!

If you think of it this way --- it may be some show that they want to attract viewers to watch but it may be on at the same time as some other prime viewing program, then surely providing meta data makes good sense?

The obvious seems to be lost on you.

You were the one extolling the virtue of simplicity ... sorry for reminding you.

Hi


Well if there is money to be made they will do it, if not they will not. Time will tell.

Personally I don't see why they are worried about spending hundreds of thousands of pounds implementing all this stuff so that people can watch a whole series and ad skip the lot?

ITV originally wanted Freeview Playback boxes to have a maximum of x16 fast forward and no commerical skip (i.e. the 30 second skip button over button) but that never made into the spec thankfully. So next they will introduce running advertisements over the program, this is already coming by stealth with huge black banners promoting the next episode or associated website or text service over the program we are watching getting us used to the idea. They are not stupid, we are being conditioned slowly to accept the idea that when we watching something, it WILL be covered with gratuitous marketing messages. On screen logo's are also part of this conditioning.

Cut the rubbish trailers and self promotions, reduce ad breaks back to 3 minutes (rather than 5 or higher) which will allow supply and demand to push prices up, plus advertisers will be happier paying more as their advert isn't swamped by a load of others diluting the message and things may improve for all of us.

But hey, what do I know!

Regards

Phil

Hi


Indeed I was, and it's lost on you. I'm only suggesting ways of making the product better and providing choice to us customer's how we use it. Why do you have a problem with that?

Keeping it simple means never introducing accurate recording in the first place, perhaps that wasn't but simply enough for you.

Now that complexity is here, like everything that isn't the simplest design, just means more bugs and complications trying to get it to work.

My suggestion of allowing us to use autopadding and still have the other Freeview Playback specs doesn't affect you does it, as you would still have the choice to use accurate recording if you so wanted.

You seem to be an apologist for Humax which I can never understand why people are like that.

What is wrong with suggesting improvements? I'm not the only person surprised or asking for auto padding to be allowed without sacrificing the other features of Freeview Playback.

The Humax is a great box, but like everything else, it can be improved.

Why not contribute, what is your suggestion for overcoming the short comings of accurate recording and that it will not be supported by most channels?

Regards

Phil

Not all broadcasters have the right equipment/technolgy in place to be able to do this even if they have the money and a set of people employed (or an external company) to do the work of updating and 'sending' the data... this is if they have such technology in the first place.

FP half works because the specs were half baked with only half of the broadcasters are/wanting/wishing to support it!