MP2 and MP1 running together? (1 Viewer)

[The Solutor]

I forgot to ask when you talked about TVE in another thread (about the unsupported platforms dialog).

You stated is not maintained by us, so who maintains it? I thought it was part of MP, until I read your previous reply.

So who maintains it? Where? There are other sw other than MPx that are using it?

 

[HTPCSourcer]

The TV Engine 3.0 was entirely written by @mm1352000. mm programmed it many years ago as the TV basis for MP1. This TVE 3.0 is since long time under code freeze and mm is currently working on an enhanced TV Engine 3.5, however, developmment is takling place in his freetime only and is advancing slowly.

When I say "not maintained by us" I refer to the fact that the TVE 3.0 core is taken as is (with some minor modifications to adjust it to some MP2-specific archictectural requirements wher it is working as a plugin instead of a stand-alone service). You can find the code of both TVE 3.0 and 3.5 (in its current development status) in GIT. If you are interested I can search for the links.

 

[The Solutor]

Ok, thanks for the explanation. I had no idea that the TV part was a one man only project. Pretty impressive

The links would be nice to have. I'm not a coder, but sometimes being a coder isn't an absolute requirement to help. I have two, bytes even on linux kernel source code. Yepp exactly two bytes overlooked by the maintainers of the time. Just a stupid example of what two fresh eyes can do when they look by chance at the right place and the right moment.

 

[mm1352000]

The TV Engine 3.0 was entirely written by @mm1352000. mm programmed it many years ago as the TV basis for MP1.

Mmmm, with the greatest respect, that's not true. Lots of people worked on TVE 3 long before I was even aware of MediaPortal. I joined the team in ~2009. Many of the other TV devs left before or have left after I joined the team. I seem to be the last TV dev left.

 

[The Solutor]

@mm1532000

Say thanks to Steve Jobs for that. He trowed a wrench inside the open source gears with his centralized appstore concept.

Kids nowadays prefers to develop a stupid widget (which may be wort a lor of easy $$) instead of cooperating with a great but unpaid project (like mediaportal, but the scenario is more or less the same everywhere)

Sad to say this will get worse as old developers will get older, entangled in work and family issues, bored and disaffected, and not being replaced by "fresh meat"

 

[spachti]

@mm1532000

Say thank to Steve Jobs for that. He trowed a wrench inside the open source gears with his centralized appstore concept.

Kids nowadays prefers to develop a stupid widget (which may be wort a lor of easy $$) instead of cooperating with a great but unpaid project (like mediaportal, but the scenario is more or less the same everywhere)

Sad to say this will get worse as old developers will get older, entangled in work and family issues, bored and disaffected, and not being replaced by "fresh meat"

I think this is more a philosophical problem.
Maybe if people would work more with each other, both programs could profit very much from it.
And NO, I'm not planning to restart the old stuff again

 

[1gkar]

I have a slightly different take on my testing, & the WIKI has no info regarding my queries. I am looking to try out MP2 for the 1st time, on a client-only PC.

What is the best way to achieve, with minimal disruptions to my main HTPC unit?

I am thinking of: which would be preferable?
1) Install MP2, on the client PC, as a singleseat machine, with the media network-shared from my HTPC folder locations? is this possible?? If so, any implications regarding the machines' stabaility, etc.?
2) if 1) is not feasible, install an MP2 dedicated server-only, on the HTPC, with zero intentions of ustilising the TV3 engine: ie. using the client PC as a media box only, to watch movies & TVSeries. Maybe a minimal testing of Live/recordedTV, at which time I can control the switching of the TVServices. Can I do this, without it impacting on my HTPC functionality?

Thanks in advance.

 

[The Solutor]

As I wrote above, IMHO, the simplest way is to use DVBlink as a "tunermanager/TVserver", then use MP1 and MP2 severs to access DVBlink via IPTV to [re]share the TV to MPx specific clients.

Then install any client combination MP1, MP2 (and WMC, Kodi, VLC, MPC-HC, android clients, whatever) as you like.

To overcome the MP1/2 servers conflicts just install one of the two servers on a Virtual Machine, or in a different machine (i.e. a client machine).

This way any client, really any client can be installed in any combination and used concurrently, practically w/o any limit.

 

[1gkar]

...is to use DVBlink

Thanks for the option, but I'm not interested in spending about NZ$100 on a product for which I would have [very] limited usage. IPTV is not a realistic option, given where I live. Have already tried it, as an alternative to view channels, & with older copper lines, it is severly limiting in its bandwidth. As MP2 will work perfectly well, when I upgrade my HTPC permanently to MP2. When the occurs depends entirely on the results of the trial I am implementing.
I know about the free trial, but I would prefer not install extra programmes, with the intend of just uninstalling them in a short while.

I would much prefer answers to my posted queries. Thanks.

 

[The Solutor]

As often happens money provides also a degree of freedom, so assuming you want to stay legit and you don't want to spend for a licence.

Anyway I think you didn't get fully what I suggested.

I'm not talking about the IPTV from the web, I'm talking about the IPTV provided by DVBlink server

DVBlink manages the physical tuner and provides the IPTV streams, then MP1 server MP2 server wouldn't touch any real tuner, so they didn't conflict each other at least on tuner management.

If w/o DVBlink, likely the next best option is to use MP1 server as the real tuner manager, then install MPextended then use MP2 server to access the IPTV shared by MPextended, way more complicate to setup, less options (no WMC clients for example), but feasible.