Is there any use for a multi protocol IR receiver/ transmitter? (2 Viewers)

[azzuro]

Could you please provide a link to the TV back-lighting project (or one of the others) you mean? As there are loads of Ambilight clones out there, I doubt I'll find the correct one.

you can look on our forum on the ambient light area.

 

[myscha]

I think you're speaking of the Sedu Board, for example. Am I right?
By the way: that one also uses the UART, but you're not seeing it as it's between the USB-UART-bridge and the microcontroller ;-) I'm trying to avoid this bridge completely and let the micro do this work.

Are there other boards which are easy to use in your opinion? Please give me some examples to help me understanding what the average user could be able to do himself.

At the moment it doesn't seem realistic to me to offer a completely assembled module as there are a couple of hurdles that make it difficult to sell a small batch as a private person which want's to stay on the legal side. CE, WEEE, for example. I'm not a lawyer, but as far as I understand all this, there is not much space for interpretation. Technically I see absolutely no problem to get through this, but unless one has a business with more than one product it's a complex situation.

 

[Stéphane Lenclud]

Really cool project, looking forward to see where this is going.

@Stéphane Lenclud :
i think you can found the graal

It could end up being a really great hardware but it will have a hard time matching that Inteset PC-IRS5-01 Universal Infrared Receiver.
Been most satisfied with this product. Since it supports Microsoft IR keyboard I get full control of my PC via IR after teaching keys and shortcuts like: Windows, Window+Tab, Alt+F4 to an Harmony remote. The Inteset guys are awesome

 

[myscha]

@Stéphane Lenclud
I don't want to compete with other products. I developed this mainly for myself and if someone else also likes it, I'm happy to share it.
My device can also deal with RC6 remotes and about 50 other protocols, so it likely can deal with almost any remote you can find. It can also be used to teach a remote, e.g. a Harmony. And the software can initiate sending commands to other equipment.
I think that could be interesting features for some other people, too.

 

[Stéphane Lenclud]

It can also be used to teach a remote, e.g. a Harmony. And the software can initiate sending commands to other equipment.
I think that could be interesting features for some other people, too.

I like that teaching functionality. I had to order that old Microsoft IR keyboard off e-bay to be able to teach my Harmony the keys I needed.
I think I got lucky those IR keyboards are pretty hard to come by these days.

 

[mm1352000]

My device can also deal with RC6 remotes and about 50 other protocols, so it likely can deal with almost any remote you can find. It can also be used to teach a remote, e.g. a Harmony. And the software can initiate sending commands to other equipment.

Sounds similar to a MCE-compatible transceiver...

 

[myscha]

My device can also deal with RC6 remotes and about 50 other protocols, so it likely can deal with almost any remote you can find. It can also be used to teach a remote, e.g. a Harmony. And the software can initiate sending commands to other equipment.

Sounds similar to a MCE-compatible transceiver...

Maybe. I don't have one and I also don't know them.

 

[mm1352000]

The high level specifications are available here:
http://download.microsoft.com/downl...-Green-Button-Specification-03-08-2011-V2.pdf

The supported configurations (eg. how many receivers, transmitters etc.), learn distance, receive distance, receiver carrier frequency range, LED behaviour etc. are all specified.

For receiving, each button-press is passed to software as a generic series of times (durations of pulses and spaces), plus the carrier frequency. From this, the software must decide which button was pressed. In other words, the end-user software is responsible for protocol support.

For transmitting, the software sets the carrier frequency and provides the series of times (identical to receive format - durations of pulses and spaces).

The transceiver and/or it's driver handles waking the PC. For that, only certain protocols (RC-6 and quattro pulse) and commands are supported, but the transceiver has a "boot-loader mode" which enables limited configurability even for that.

Personally I think the design is quite well thought out, though the clarity of the specification could be improved.

 

[myscha]

Thanks for the information. Unfortunately the link isn't working, but it seems to be a MS problem. I'll try again later.

Perhaps you can answer some more questions in the mean time until it's available again:
Can the the MCE device wake the PC from all power states?
Does it include a timer that wakes the PC at a given time from any state?

Obviously there are loads of MCE receivers out there, so there's no need to develop another one, I think. Does it have shortcomings? Maybe something could be improved.

 

[mm1352000]

Thanks for the information. Unfortunately the link isn't working, but it seems to be a MS problem. I'll try again later.

Hmmm, strange. I've attached my local copy for you.

Can the the MCE device wake the PC from all power states?

The specifications answer this in the "Wake From Remote" section. In short: yes for S1 and S3. S4 and S5 are optional.

Does it include a timer that wakes the PC at a given time from any state?

I'm not sure if I understand you correctly. What I can say is that the end-user must press a specific button on the remote which generates a specific code/command which the receiver recognises. Again, the "Wake From Remote" section explains the details.

Obviously there are loads of MCE receivers out there, so there's no need to develop another one, I think. Does it have shortcomings? Maybe something could be improved.

Yes, I was thinking along the same lines myself. MCE-compatible transceivers are generally considered the de-facto standard for HTPCs. Therefore if you were selling your design as a product, MCE-compatible designs would be the natural competition.

Off the top of my head I can't think of any shortcomings. The design is quite flexible and comprehensive. For example, products aren't generally advertised as being able to teach a remote, however I assume that capability could be implemented by an interested software developer using the standard blaster/transmitter interface.