I've made my feelings known at least twice in this thread. Let's get the thing right before we release it..Brian is absolutely right about this, but what really gets me is equating this with "Freedbs" as a few are doing..So not right at all..
New GEOSATpro microHD Receiver
- Thread starter SatelliteAV
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 1K
- Views 162K
- Status
i did buy one while waiting. then i can give mary the best one and keep the microhd for myself... unless she finds out its really better!!! charlie
Credit where credit is due then........good job Fizbi. I suspect Brian will publish an official spec sheet as time permits but that info should help those that come into the thread late or unable to keep the details straight.actually thank Fizbi. He's the one who made the PDF and sent it to me
actually I posted it here in this thread: back on Jan 14th .
http://www.satelliteguys.us/free-ai...rohd-receiver-coming-soon-17.html#post2752712
Thought that pdf looked familiar when I looked at it today.
A good compilation of data. I did read your post but did not recognize it in .pdf form some 500+ posts later......lol
My uh.....what's that called?......hmmm.......anyway, whatever it is called, it aint what it used to be.......
It seems to be kinda quiet in this thread. Hopefully Brian's next post will be "Now taking orders"
A feature I would absolutely love to see would be to look at the list of channels per satellite and know which ones are active without going through all of them. Maybe a button push to do a quick scan of a particular satellite, with red and green dots showing status. Red = not active, green = active. Would be useful for quickly searching for a remote feed
Interesting idea. :up
Essentially, it would use a similar process that provides a multi-channel preview screen that is available on some STBs. Instead of displaying the image of what is active on the satellite, it could log and display a status. When would you expect this status to be erased? When the channel list screen was exited or the satellite selection changed?
Last edited:
I never thought about that.....that would be neat, and I bet very easy to implement.
NO NO NO not in this release! I want MY receiver before JUNE 1st! CHANGE ORDERS take time! Maybe later... as an OTA update!
No more changes are being implemented in the first firmware release. All requests being received are for future versions.
Reminded of TD Jakes, (If you do not like Glorystar, you will not recognize this at all but if you have watched TBN a lot you should!):
GIT READY, GIT READY, GIT READY, GIT READY, GIT READY! GIT READY, GIT READY, GIT READY, GIT READY, GIT READY!
No, this is not an announcement.....
GIT READY, GIT READY, GIT READY, GIT READY, GIT READY! GIT READY, GIT READY, GIT READY, GIT READY, GIT READY!
No, this is not an announcement.....
Whenever a different satellite is selected would be nice. That way you could exit the channel list screen and go back to see what else was active on the same satellite
now each morning i switch on satellite sales and receivers. one day i will see microhd for sale... whoo whooo whoooo. charlie
I believe that when they become available , you will feel the earth move !!!!! [ The line continues behind me ]
With a gig of ram likely several scans could be stored, and a box pop up with a choice to select the (per satellite) scan to delete when the allocated ram is full. The scan that wont fit in the allocated ram could be held in a scratchpad until which "scan data to delete" or "cancel data collection for this scan" is chosen. Unless I'm looking for something specific, very often I scan several "select" birds then go back and analyze the results. I dont scan both H/V in the same scan either. It's a habit, main reason was for wear and tear on the polarotor when using the 10' array, but there are times when scanning both in a single scan is very slow and unproductive. If the H/V is interlaced, even electronic switched LNBs have transient settling time, and could miss signals. A polarotor is definitely too slow for interlaced H/V blindscanning. Given that, consideration for merging the data until the allocated limit is reached, or some type of FIFO buffer management for the data may be more plausible and easier to implement. A "clear all" function would probably be wise as well. A FIFO scheme would have it's drawbacks as well though. Sounds like Brian is mulling the idea over, so however it is ultimately done, it is a really cool idea.
- Status
