开云体育

A "tick" (i.e. 1d in a time based symbol) is 0.01s in terms of crestron programming. That's the same for both 3 series and 2 series.

Gates run faster on the MC3 than they do on the 2 series, but I'm not sure if that's going to really get in your way. Most pure SIMPL solutions work the same. There have been some SIMPL+ gotchas since it's a new platform, but they have endeavored to make most of it the same (and if you do have access to the labs, you CAN post a message to them saying that XXX works on a 2 but not on a 3 series).

But there never was a "time" for a logic wave, anyway, since a "wave" is variable to begin with.


--- In Crestron@..., stranded <strandedyahoo@> wrote:

Is the module completely Simpl+? Having not used a MC3 yet all I can tell
you is that if you are using anything that uses ticks for timing it will
cause timing issues. This is because a tick in the MC3 is much much
shorter than in a 2 series.

On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 10:29 AM, waltonad0283 <waltonad0283@>wrote:

**


Hi All,

I have a Simpl+ module that I wrote for an IP controlled device, it works
fine with my Cp2E processor in the office. - However - when It got sent out
to a client site that has an MC3 in it - it doesn't work.

I am trying to switch audio/video sources - on my Cp2E - everything
happens fine. On the MC3, toolbox shows making a successful socket
connection, but the switch never happens. Then the socket closes like it's
supposed to.. Has anyone else had this happen - on any IP module that
worked on a 2 series and not on a 3 series - and if so what was the
resolution?

Thanks

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I'm not sure I'd call it an "issue" in terms of the original phrasing. The MC3/PMC3/PMC3-XP has one IR generator that is multiplexed amongst the 5 ports. If you turn port 2 while Port 1 is generating, Port 1 will finish the min # of repeats for the given IR command Port 1 is generating, then it will start generating Port 2.


--- In Crestron@..., Steve Kaudle <crestron@> wrote:

As I understand it, if you try to send two IR commands at the same time
(not sure if that means an overlapping time duration of the associated
digitals, logic wave, or logic solution), one or more of the IR commands
will be generated as a single, minimum pulse.

On 4/12/2012 8:50 PM, Witmarquzot wrote:

From what we saw on this group i believe it would stopped if you tried to use two ports at once i think?

It is not labeled as an easy search (MC3 Problems, MC3 Feedback, MC3 IR). Must have been January/Febuary, might have been November

--- In Crestron@..., "floyd1212"<floyd1212@> wrote:

What's the problem with simultaneous IR on the MC3?

--- In Crestron@..., "Witmarquzot"<tdurrant420@> wrote:

Still vapor ware at this point, so who knows

--- In Crestron@..., "John"<ComeAlive@> wrote:

Does the CP3 have the same issue as the MC3 with regards to simultaneous IR output

------------------------------------



Check out the Files area for useful modules, documents, and drivers.

A contact list of Crestron dealers and programmers can be found in the Database area.
Yahoo! Groups Links

It's a real analog line or a module who convert an ip extension into an analog extension. i have seen this in the past and it was cause by the device who create the analog line.



--- In Crestron@..., "matt_rasmussen_2000" <mjrtoo@> wrote:

For some reason I've been assigned the task of figuring out this issue and wondering if someone here can help out real quick.

An older Vortex system was replaced with BSS and a new HDX8000, but the engineer didn't understand that the old EF2241 had an analog phone dialer and didn't include one in the BSS (used the BLU-101 instead of the 102). So, they are using the analog phone input of the HDX8000 to dial those calls. As far as programming goes, it's working fine, but it appears that the analog phone calls are half-duplex, so if someone is talking in the local room, or, an audio source is playing, the far site on the phone call cannot be heard or interrupt the local conversation. The video conference audio is just fine, full duplex communication etc. The BSS is currently setup to do the AEC processing in the system and the AEC is off in the codec.

I guess I don't understand why the analog phone would be any different than the video conference audio coming out of the codec and processed by the BSS? I've looked through the menus of the codec to look for any settings for the analog dialer, but I can't see anything that would set it up for half duplex. Or, maybe the dialer in the HDX8000 is just half-duplex?

Is the module completely Simpl+? Having not used a MC3 yet all I can tell
you is that if you are using anything that uses ticks for timing it will
cause timing issues. This is because a tick in the MC3 is much much
shorter than in a 2 series.

On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 10:29 AM, waltonad0283 <waltonad0283@...>wrote:

**


Hi All,

I have a Simpl+ module that I wrote for an IP controlled device, it works
fine with my Cp2E processor in the office. - However - when It got sent out
to a client site that has an MC3 in it - it doesn't work.

I am trying to switch audio/video sources - on my Cp2E - everything
happens fine. On the MC3, toolbox shows making a successful socket
connection, but the switch never happens. Then the socket closes like it's
supposed to.. Has anyone else had this happen - on any IP module that
worked on a 2 series and not on a 3 series - and if so what was the
resolution?

Thanks

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- On Friday, April 13, 2012 at 2:25 PM, Jeremy Weatherford wrote:

Handy reference here: Teach Yourself Programming in Ten Years:


Specific to Crestron, make sure you get to training classes, as they will
teach you things that are difficult to learn on your own. Get your own
processor (QM-RMC or DIN-AP2) if you don't already have one to test things
on. Get familiar with Debugger, explore existing programs in it and make
sure you really understand how they work, and not just what they do. Read
the SIMPL Primer and the symbol help files. Make sure you know what all the
symbols in the symbol library do -- that will come in handy some day when
you're saying "I know there's a symbol that does X..." even if you don't
remember exactly what it's called. Many of the more complex symbol help
topics also give examples of how you might use them. If you're not sure how
something works, write a little test program so you can poke the symbol in
Debugger and see what happens.

Learn to read protocol documents... I enjoy when people post questions
about protocols on this group, because, time permitting, I try to decipher
the protocol myself, whether or not I can answer their actual question. The
more protocol documents I decipher, the easier it is to interpret new
protocols.

Identify your weak spots and start practicing with them. Crosspoints?
SIMPL+? Serial parsing in SIMPL? Analog logic? Modules?
Hex/ASCII/decimal data formats? Page flip logic? What are some things that
you might be asked to add to a program that would be useful to practice
beforehand? Timeserver synchronization? XPanels?
iPads? Lamp hours? Countdown timer for a presenter?
Weather/news/stock tickers?

There's no substitute for practice... to make it more realistic, be sure
you sit on a 5-gallon bucket in an active sawmill and give yourself a
deadline of 15 minutes until the CEO's presentation starts.

On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 1:48 PM, coreygsimpson <coreygsimpson@...>
wrote:

I have been programming for a few years but have not been in a position

to do it full time, I am really a lead install tech that can also program.
I would like some input from the group on how to widen my programming
abilities. It would seem like most of the things learned would come
necessity. what i mean by that is that I learn how to program code for a
specific piece of gear because I need to for a job. But what are some thing
I could do to basically prep myself for upcoming needs? Any input would be
appreciated.

That's a far reaching generalization to call that methodology anything like
systembuilder.

For a long time, I've shared a similar mentality to Barry's whereby it
irritates me to no end how juvenile and immature the AV programming
community as a whole is (I concede that there are obvious exceptions, but
for the case of this argument let's assume I'm right).

If you look at ANY other software industry and compare it to ours, the
contradictions are glaring. Why? Because we tend to cling to the silly
notion that we're "different" because we deal with A/V and archaic
proprietary RS-232 protocols and such....

The reality is that we're no different. We produce computer software. We
write code. We build graphical user interfaces. Guess what? We're not
exactly pioneers here....

I think it was Nathan in the thread about locked code/modules lately that
made a statement that brought a smile to my face and gave me hope. The
world of PC programming discovered years ago that protecting common code
that almost every one of their competitors was using wasn't making them
more competitive or profitable and that it was far more beneficial to
themselves, and the industry as a whole, to share such code amongst each
other. These days, most PC programmers rarely write anything truly
original, instead they use OOP libraries and class modules to adapt for
their purposes. The originality, profitability and ingenuity comes in
combining them in some new and more effective way that advances the
efficiency or capability of the software. It's pretty hard to get to that
point if you have to start from scratch and write everything yourself.
With a solid foundation (i.e. Andriod OS) that is developed and improved in
a open source environment, there is still a TON of room and market to build
innovative profitable products.

I watch my own team of ~10 programmers constantly each spend hours trying
to solve the same problem on their own. While I value each person's
approach and don't really have an opinion on which way is better as long as
the finished product is the same, it's terribly inefficient for the company
and themselves. What AV programmers need to realize is that we would all
make more money and do less work if we behaved more like the rest of the
programming world. Find the common problems and scenarios, solve them
generically, efficiently and in a way that is reusable in as many
situations as possible and instead spend your time and effort on the
problems and scenarios that are uncommon or adding new features that add
value.

</rant...>



On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 12:20 PM, matt_rasmussen_2000 <mjrtoo@...>wrote:

**


So you want to write another systembuilder?


--- In Crestron@..., Barry Newton <barry@> wrote:

You know, this really gets at programming technique which is something

Crestron has always stayed out of. They offer best practices for specific
situations sometimes, but overall architecture is absent. So like most
programmers with experience, I have my own approach I use over and over.
There are a lot of unpaid hours that went into it, but that time is
recovered in being able to produce finished programs more quickly.

I suspect most programmers eventually abandon timed logic for the most

part and begin thinking in terms of logic wave pulses and wave delays where
that sort of thing is needed. I know I spend an unhealthy amount of time
tweaking logic just to reduce the number of symbols.

I have wondered if there is interest in the community in creating a

standard architecture for program design, something like an open source
project. In my mind the focus would be creating an overall architecture
with cut-and-paste-ready logic modules with well defined standard
interfaces. There are a lot of device modules in the files section, but I
haven't seen a lot other than that, and there is no standardization at all
really.

Maybe most of you have too much invested in your own approaches to want

to share techniques, even I'm not sure I want to do that, but it won't hurt
to discuss it.

Sorry to hijack the thread.

Barry



On Apr 12, 2012, at 6:54 PM, Steve Kaudle wrote:

To some extent that's dependent on the display's in question (or more
specifically, the completeness of their control API's). Lets assume
that the displays can either be queried and/or will provide

unsolicited

feedback for the current power state (off, warming, on, or cooling).
Given that, I'd write a module that would always tell me the current
power status, and if either of the display's 'warming_fb' outputs were
high, activate the subpage.

On 4/12/2012 6:32 PM, avsystemdesign wrote:

Thanks Steve,

Then how would a person create the following condition?

Display A + B can be powered up separately, but depending on what

source has been selected they both may or may not need to be powered up at
the same time. And here is the kicker, they both have different warm up
times, and the "system is warming up" page needs to be held high during the
power up cycle.

So if A takes 10s to warm up, but has been powered up at the same

time as B (which takes 20s), the warm up page needs to be high for 20s.

--- In Crestron@..., Steve Kaudle<crestron@> wrote:

From a more abstract/best practices standpoint, you should try to

keep

the amount of timed events (steppers, delays, one-shots, etc...) you

use

to a minimum. That said, I'd bet you'd need to use a>lot< of steppers
before the burden they put on system would be perceived by the
operator. Lots of variables at play and the real world threshold will
likely vary (greatly) from system to system. Note that the previous
statement(s) should most defiantly not be translated into anything

like

'stop using timed events if you want your systems to work right'.

From a logical/program flow standpoint, I prefer to avoid timed

events

and build logic that is condition dependent. Example: I don't
necessarily want to send an input swap command to a projector based

on a

specific amount of time having passed, but rather based on real-time
conditions like the (actual) power state and current input selection.

On 4/12/2012 5:56 PM, avsystemdesign wrote:

I know there are several ways to skin a cat in Crestron world, and

I am always looking at improving and following best practices. Having said
that I have a question.

Is it bad to have 2 or 3 steppers running concurrently? Depending

on the device being used, I like to have a stepper handle the procedure.

For example, source is selected, stepper for projector 1 is

triggered, this fires up the proj and sends down the screen, whilst
indicating the system is warming up.

If a different source is selected, it might be destined for other

displays, which in turn will trigger their respective steppers.

So there might be a few steppers running at the same time.




------------------------------------

Check out the Files area for useful modules, documents, and drivers.

A contact list of Crestron dealers and programmers can be found in

the Database area.

Yahoo!
Groups Links

------------------------------------

Check out the Files area for useful modules, documents, and drivers.

A contact list of Crestron dealers and programmers can be found in

the Database area.

Yahoo!
Groups Links

------------------------------------

Check out the Files area for useful modules, documents, and drivers.

A contact list of Crestron dealers and programmers can be found in the

Database area.

Yahoo!
Groups Links

As I understand it, if you try to send two IR commands at the same time
(not sure if that means an overlapping time duration of the associated
digitals, logic wave, or logic solution), one or more of the IR commands
will be generated as a single, minimum pulse.

On 4/12/2012 8:50 PM, Witmarquzot wrote:

From what we saw on this group i believe it would stopped if you tried to use two ports at once i think?

It is not labeled as an easy search (MC3 Problems, MC3 Feedback, MC3 IR). Must have been January/Febuary, might have been November

--- In Crestron@..., "floyd1212"<floyd1212@> wrote:

What's the problem with simultaneous IR on the MC3?

--- In Crestron@..., "Witmarquzot"<tdurrant420@> wrote:

Still vapor ware at this point, so who knows

--- In Crestron@..., "John"<ComeAlive@> wrote:

Does the CP3 have the same issue as the MC3 with regards to simultaneous IR output

------------------------------------



Check out the Files area for useful modules, documents, and drivers.

A contact list of Crestron dealers and programmers can be found in the Database area.
Yahoo! Groups Links

That's a far reaching generalization to call that methodology anything like
systembuilder.

For a long time, I've shared a similar mentality to Barry's whereby it
irritates me to no end how juvenile and immature the AV programming
community as a whole is (I concede that there are obvious exceptions, but
for the case of this argument let's assume I'm right).

If you look at ANY other software industry and compare it to ours, the
contradictions are glaring. Why? Because we tend to cling to the silly
notion that we're "different" because we deal with A/V and archaic
proprietary RS-232 protocols and such....

The reality is that we're no different. We produce computer software. We
write code. We build graphical user interfaces. Guess what? We're not
exactly pioneers here....

I think it was Nathan in the thread about locked code/modules lately that
made a statement that brought a smile to my face and gave me hope. The
world of PC programming discovered years ago that protecting common code
that almost every one of their competitors was using wasn't making them
more competitive or profitable and that it was far more beneficial to
themselves, and the industry as a whole, to share such code amongst each
other. These days, most PC programmers rarely write anything truly
original, instead they use OOP libraries and class modules to adapt for
their purposes. The originality, profitability and ingenuity comes in
combining them in some new and more effective way that advances the
efficiency or capability of the software. It's pretty hard to get to that
point if you have to start from scratch and write everything yourself.
With a solid foundation (i.e. Andriod OS) that is developed and improved in
a open source environment, there is still a TON of room and market to build
innovative profitable products.

I watch my own team of ~10 programmers constantly each spend hours trying
to solve the same problem on their own. While I value each person's
approach and don't really have an opinion on which way is better as long as
the finished product is the same, it's terribly inefficient for the company
and themselves. What AV programmers need to realize is that we would all
make more money and do less work if we behaved more like the rest of the
programming world. Find the common problems and scenarios, solve them
generically, efficiently and in a way that is reusable in as many
situations as possible and instead spend your time and effort on the
problems and scenarios that are uncommon or adding new features that add
value.

</rant...>

**


So you want to write another systembuilder?


--- In Crestron@..., Barry Newton <barry@...> wrote:

You know, this really gets at programming technique which is something

Crestron has always stayed out of. They offer best practices for specific
situations sometimes, but overall architecture is absent. So like most
programmers with experience, I have my own approach I use over and over.
There are a lot of unpaid hours that went into it, but that time is
recovered in being able to produce finished programs more quickly.

I suspect most programmers eventually abandon timed logic for the most

part and begin thinking in terms of logic wave pulses and wave delays where
that sort of thing is needed. I know I spend an unhealthy amount of time
tweaking logic just to reduce the number of symbols.

I have wondered if there is interest in the community in creating a

standard architecture for program design, something like an open source
project. In my mind the focus would be creating an overall architecture
with cut-and-paste-ready logic modules with well defined standard
interfaces. There are a lot of device modules in the files section, but I
haven't seen a lot other than that, and there is no standardization at all
really.

Maybe most of you have too much invested in your own approaches to want

to share techniques, even I'm not sure I want to do that, but it won't hurt
to discuss it.

Sorry to hijack the thread.

Barry



On Apr 12, 2012, at 6:54 PM, Steve Kaudle wrote:

To some extent that's dependent on the display's in question (or more
specifically, the completeness of their control API's). Lets assume
that the displays can either be queried and/or will provide

unsolicited

feedback for the current power state (off, warming, on, or cooling).
Given that, I'd write a module that would always tell me the current
power status, and if either of the display's 'warming_fb' outputs were
high, activate the subpage.

On 4/12/2012 6:32 PM, avsystemdesign wrote:

Thanks Steve,

Then how would a person create the following condition?

Display A + B can be powered up separately, but depending on what

source has been selected they both may or may not need to be powered up at
the same time. And here is the kicker, they both have different warm up
times, and the "system is warming up" page needs to be held high during the
power up cycle.

So if A takes 10s to warm up, but has been powered up at the same

time as B (which takes 20s), the warm up page needs to be high for 20s.

--- In Crestron@..., Steve Kaudle<crestron@> wrote:

From a more abstract/best practices standpoint, you should try to

keep

the amount of timed events (steppers, delays, one-shots, etc...) you

use

to a minimum. That said, I'd bet you'd need to use a>lot< of steppers
before the burden they put on system would be perceived by the
operator. Lots of variables at play and the real world threshold will
likely vary (greatly) from system to system. Note that the previous
statement(s) should most defiantly not be translated into anything

like

'stop using timed events if you want your systems to work right'.

From a logical/program flow standpoint, I prefer to avoid timed

events

and build logic that is condition dependent. Example: I don't
necessarily want to send an input swap command to a projector based

on a

specific amount of time having passed, but rather based on real-time
conditions like the (actual) power state and current input selection.

On 4/12/2012 5:56 PM, avsystemdesign wrote:

I know there are several ways to skin a cat in Crestron world, and

I am always looking at improving and following best practices. Having said
that I have a question.

Is it bad to have 2 or 3 steppers running concurrently? Depending

on the device being used, I like to have a stepper handle the procedure.

For example, source is selected, stepper for projector 1 is

triggered, this fires up the proj and sends down the screen, whilst
indicating the system is warming up.

If a different source is selected, it might be destined for other

displays, which in turn will trigger their respective steppers.

So there might be a few steppers running at the same time.




------------------------------------

Check out the Files area for useful modules, documents, and drivers.

A contact list of Crestron dealers and programmers can be found in

the Database area.

Yahoo!
Groups Links

------------------------------------

Check out the Files area for useful modules, documents, and drivers.

A contact list of Crestron dealers and programmers can be found in

the Database area.

Yahoo!
Groups Links

------------------------------------

Check out the Files area for useful modules, documents, and drivers.

A contact list of Crestron dealers and programmers can be found in the

Database area.

Yahoo!
Groups Links

There's no substitute for practice... to make it more realistic, be
sure you sit on a 5-gallon bucket in an active sawmill and give
yourself a deadline of 15 minutes until the CEO's presentation starts.

For some reason I've been assigned the task of figuring out this issue and wondering if someone here can help out real quick.

An older Vortex system was replaced with BSS and a new HDX8000, but the engineer didn't understand that the old EF2241 had an analog phone dialer and didn't include one in the BSS (used the BLU-101 instead of the 102). So, they are using the analog phone input of the HDX8000 to dial those calls. As far as programming goes, it's working fine, but it appears that the analog phone calls are half-duplex, so if someone is talking in the local room, or, an audio source is playing, the far site on the phone call cannot be heard or interrupt the local conversation. The video conference audio is just fine, full duplex communication etc. The BSS is currently setup to do the AEC processing in the system and the AEC is off in the codec.

I guess I don't understand why the analog phone would be any different than the video conference audio coming out of the codec and processed by the BSS? I've looked through the menus of the codec to look for any settings for the analog dialer, but I can't see anything that would set it up for half duplex. Or, maybe the dialer in the HDX8000 is just half-duplex?

So you want to write another systembuilder?

--- In Crestron@..., Barry Newton <barry@...> wrote:

You know, this really gets at programming technique which is something Crestron has always stayed out of. They offer best practices for specific situations sometimes, but overall architecture is absent. So like most programmers with experience, I have my own approach I use over and over. There are a lot of unpaid hours that went into it, but that time is recovered in being able to produce finished programs more quickly.

I suspect most programmers eventually abandon timed logic for the most part and begin thinking in terms of logic wave pulses and wave delays where that sort of thing is needed. I know I spend an unhealthy amount of time tweaking logic just to reduce the number of symbols.

I have wondered if there is interest in the community in creating a standard architecture for program design, something like an open source project. In my mind the focus would be creating an overall architecture with cut-and-paste-ready logic modules with well defined standard interfaces. There are a lot of device modules in the files section, but I haven't seen a lot other than that, and there is no standardization at all really.

Maybe most of you have too much invested in your own approaches to want to share techniques, even I'm not sure I want to do that, but it won't hurt to discuss it.

Sorry to hijack the thread.

Barry



On Apr 12, 2012, at 6:54 PM, Steve Kaudle wrote:

To some extent that's dependent on the display's in question (or more
specifically, the completeness of their control API's). Lets assume
that the displays can either be queried and/or will provide unsolicited
feedback for the current power state (off, warming, on, or cooling).
Given that, I'd write a module that would always tell me the current
power status, and if either of the display's 'warming_fb' outputs were
high, activate the subpage.

On 4/12/2012 6:32 PM, avsystemdesign wrote:

Thanks Steve,

Then how would a person create the following condition?

Display A + B can be powered up separately, but depending on what source has been selected they both may or may not need to be powered up at the same time. And here is the kicker, they both have different warm up times, and the "system is warming up" page needs to be held high during the power up cycle.
So if A takes 10s to warm up, but has been powered up at the same time as B (which takes 20s), the warm up page needs to be high for 20s.


--- In Crestron@..., Steve Kaudle<crestron@> wrote:

From a more abstract/best practices standpoint, you should try to keep
the amount of timed events (steppers, delays, one-shots, etc...) you use
to a minimum. That said, I'd bet you'd need to use a>lot< of steppers
before the burden they put on system would be perceived by the
operator. Lots of variables at play and the real world threshold will
likely vary (greatly) from system to system. Note that the previous
statement(s) should most defiantly not be translated into anything like
'stop using timed events if you want your systems to work right'.

From a logical/program flow standpoint, I prefer to avoid timed events
and build logic that is condition dependent. Example: I don't
necessarily want to send an input swap command to a projector based on a
specific amount of time having passed, but rather based on real-time
conditions like the (actual) power state and current input selection.

On 4/12/2012 5:56 PM, avsystemdesign wrote:

I know there are several ways to skin a cat in Crestron world, and I am always looking at improving and following best practices. Having said that I have a question.
Is it bad to have 2 or 3 steppers running concurrently? Depending on the device being used, I like to have a stepper handle the procedure.

For example, source is selected, stepper for projector 1 is triggered, this fires up the proj and sends down the screen, whilst indicating the system is warming up.
If a different source is selected, it might be destined for other displays, which in turn will trigger their respective steppers.
So there might be a few steppers running at the same time.




------------------------------------



Check out the Files area for useful modules, documents, and drivers.

A contact list of Crestron dealers and programmers can be found in the Database area.
Yahoo! Groups Links

------------------------------------



Check out the Files area for useful modules, documents, and drivers.

A contact list of Crestron dealers and programmers can be found in the Database area.
Yahoo! Groups Links

------------------------------------



Check out the Files area for useful modules, documents, and drivers.

A contact list of Crestron dealers and programmers can be found in the Database area.
Yahoo! Groups Links

------------------------------------



Check out the Files area for useful modules, documents, and drivers.

A contact list of Crestron dealers and programmers can be found in the Database area.
Yahoo! Groups Links

So you want to write another systembuilder?

**


I have been programming for a few years but have not been in a position to
do it full time, I am really a lead install tech that can also program. I
would like some input from the group on how to widen my programming
abilities. It would seem like most of the things learned would come
necessity. what i mean by that is that I learn how to program code for a
specific piece of gear because I need to for a job. But what are some thing
I could do to basically prep myself for upcoming needs? Any input would be
appreciated.