Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="markius" data-source="post: 294181" data-attributes="member: 28097">&lt;EDIT&gt; D'uh... just realised this is the same as what binary64 wrote :sorry:I blame too many late nights watching Olympics!&lt;/EDIT&gt;Would it be possible to change the logic slightly?My understanding is that the channel scan will wait for 5 seconds for NIT sections to arrive before moving on to the next MUX and if we up the timeout to 20 seconds then channel scanning will be slower. (My understanding could of course be way off)Could we have logic that waits for *up to* 20 seconds for the NIT section, but will move on to the next MUX as soon as the NIT section is seen?&nbsp; This may even result in faster channel scans on MUXs where NIT sections are transmitted more frequently.Just a thought and as I say my assumptions could be way offCheers for the hard work guys... loving your work!Mark</blockquote>

[QUOTE="markius, post: 294181, member: 28097"] <EDIT> D'uh... just realised this is the same as what binary64 wrote :sorry: I blame too many late nights watching Olympics! </EDIT> [COLOR="Silver"]Would it be possible to change the logic slightly? My understanding is that the channel scan will wait for 5 seconds for NIT sections to arrive before moving on to the next MUX and if we up the timeout to 20 seconds then channel scanning will be slower. (My understanding could of course be way off) Could we have logic that waits for *up to* 20 seconds for the NIT section, but will move on to the next MUX as soon as the NIT section is seen? This may even result in faster channel scans on MUXs where NIT sections are transmitted more frequently. Just a thought and as I say my assumptions could be way off Cheers for the hard work guys... loving your work! Mark[/COLOR] [/QUOTE]

Verification