Use Sage Client to control Extender

[dlevey]

I know there is a web interface that does this, and even a mobile version that does this, but neither does it how I think it should be done.

The reason is, I am a firm beleiver in a Comon Interface, meaning all interfaces to the product should be the same in look, feel, and function.

I think it would bhe great if the Client had an option to play whatever I am selecting to an extender.

The same place where the menu can optionally pop up as you are traversing folders which says the options which includes things like "play Video, Play all 123 videos, etc, I'd like to have the option to play the video (or song, or album, or playlist, etc) to an extender.

I don't mind if this happens via a web interface, as long as the UI is the same - or at least very close.

It is difficult enough getting the WAF to accept SAGE, let allone having to make caviats like "wwell, if you are in the kitchen and want to control it then ( insert whole new set of rules and interface to make it work)" That doesn't go over well, nor should it.

So, is there any way to make this happen?

[PiX64]

So are you looking for a option simliar to what you see int he web ui both standard and web which say "play on Family room Hd200" for example?

bascially when selecting a video from either a client or extender to play one of the options would have an addtional menu:

navigate to recording
hit ok
options menu displayed
" Send to or play on..." new menu item
when selecting this menu item it would display a list of all connected clients/extenders on your local network and allow you to pick which one to send it to?

~PiX64

[dlevey]

Yes,

So in the Sage Client (or placeshifter) I get an option to use it as the client and play locally, or use it as the interface to tell the extender what to do.

I am not too interested at this moment to send it to a client, but I could see where that might be an option.

That would be ideal.

Is there a way to achieve this?

[PiX64]

AFAIK - Only way i know of to control extenders/clients without using the client/extender itself is

1. Neilms web ui
2. jreichen mobile webui will allow you to send media to the extender or client..
3. focneurs tisagetv or tasagetv mobile phone app

other then that you or someone else would need to create something which would allow you to achieve this...

[Fuzzy]

Or... you could just control the extender with the extender's remote? I'm not sure I'm really understanding what you are looking for here. You should already have the same interface at all sage locations, be it client/server/extender/placeshifter...

[PiX64]

Yeah i agree with you Fuzzy....i wasn't sorta lost on this as well, but thought i could piece enough of it together to give some direction

reading it again i still don't understand the point

remote seems easy enough to me and is no different than if you had a regular cable co STB at each location....

[stanger89]

The idea is to have a nice, hand-held "remote" with the standard Sage UI that would cause playback to happen on an extender. So basically instead of browsing your library by up/down/left/right/select on the remote, you do it by touchscreen on a iPad or similar.

I've actually sort of wanted something like that for quite a while. In principal it wouldn't be that hard. Assuming you had a device that ran placeshifter you could just run Placeshifter with a custom STV that issued all the playback/transport controls to a different UI context.

That said, I think such a solution would be more complex than that. I don't think you'd want the exact same UI, in fact I don't think it would be entirely possible. For example I think you'd want an "option bar" maybe on the right side (opposite the normal menus) to do things like pop up the options or info dialogs. You'd also need a custom media player OSD implemented to replace the video that's playing on the remote UI context. Maybe something like a time bar, cover art, description, and transport controls.

Or at least that's my take on the benefit, that said, I'm not entirely sure I understand the OP's reason for wanting it. I don't understand the OP's issue with uncommon UIs. As noted Sage uses the same UI everywhere you use it, so regardless of if you're in the kitchen or anywhere else, the UI is the same.

[dlevey]

The reason for wanting it is I have my extender in a central media component closet along with my home server, cable dvr, satellite dvr, blu ray player, etc all connected to a 4 x 4 (hopefully soon to be 6x 6 or 8 x 8) HDMI matrix switcher which distributes any component all over the house.

I found cheap RF remotes with remote eyes controlling it all, including the hdmi switcher

The net effect is I have a centrallized media distibution system built on the cheap (relatively), and to brag a bit - its pretty cool and works well.

However, I can only program so much into the universal remote for the sage control, and even if I could, using the gui on the computer is simpler and more intuitive than any remote will ever be.

My latest addition is a touch screen monitor in the kitchen, where I would like to run Sage client to better control whatever the extender is doing wherever I may be sending it's signal.

Ideally I will also have some software that can act as a networked remote to supplement or replace the RF remotes someday as well.

I can see in the future having an android tablet or similar version for portability that also contains all of this.

However, as noted, I am a firm beleiver in a common interface. I (and the other less techie types in the house) should only have to learn the details once (which is why I have 5 Universal RF remotes - all the same model, all programmed identically, in every room in the house where there is a TV to view the output of the central media distibution).

I really think this should be an integrated part of the sage client, right on the same menu (if enabled by the user) to allow for "play to" in addition to just "play" for all types of media and sets of media.

[Fuzzy]

Your setup is far from typical. I think you'd find sagetv in pretty much every way obsoletes the entire concept of the matrix switch. For the cost of that 8x8 matrix switch and associated long distance hdmi, you could probably have an hd300 at each viewing location, connected with cheap cat5e.

[GKusnick]

Originally Posted by Fuzzy

I think you'd find sagetv in pretty much every way obsoletes the entire concept of the matrix switch.

I disagree. For synchronized multizone playback, a gaggle of HD300s won't cut it. You need a single source feeding a matrix switch.

[Fuzzy]

Originally Posted by GKusnick

I disagree. For synchronized multizone playback, a gaggle of HD300s won't cut it. You need a single source feeding a matrix switch.

I feel that for most people this type of viewing is absolutely the exception, and not the rule. Therefore, the Matrix switch, as opposed to the distributed method, adds a LOT of extra complexity and cost for everyday use, with an extremely minor trade-off for the rare instance of wanting to watch the exact same thing, in every room of the house - exactly in sync. I'd wager that most people that have long-installed matrix switch setups, still don't use them in this scenario very often, and wasn't even the reason they went that route in the first place. Instead, it was to get around limitations in hardware that the sagetv distributed also gets around (like the ability to share a blu ray drive, or sat dvr throughout a house).

[Fonceur]

Originally Posted by dlevey

The reason is, I am a firm beleiver in a Comon Interface, meaning all interfaces to the product should be the same in look, feel, and function.

Then your only real option is a Windows mobile phone or more likely such a tablet, running a placeshifter on it...

[dlevey]

More expensive? The matrix switch costs $160 and I might have $250 in cables (monoprice.com). My remotes cost me $50 each (URC RF-10 with base)

Sage doesn't handle everything I would want. I split out and select my cable dvr, my satelite dvr, and my blu ray.

understandably there are ways to make that work with sage - but I also set this up starting 2+ years ago when sage was not as far along, and I was still tinkering with it all.

I understand my installation is far from typical. I have the beginings of what all installations will be like in the future , select any source, select any target- and go. Put all components in one place instead of multiple places.

At Christmas when we had a large group over I had my christmas playlist running in every room in the house , in sync, displaying a family slideshow on every tv.

I can use any remote, from anywhere in the house, to control most aspects of all of it.

It is far from perfect, but it works pretty well.

[dlevey]

The tablet still wouldn't work - the sage client (or placeshifter) doesn't control the extender

[dlevey]

one last point, had I gone the extender in every room option, I'd have all HD200 right now, instead of inexpensively upgrading to the 300 recently. and when I chose to add the kitchen recently my incremental cost for distribution was $26 for a 35 ft HDMI cable, not $150 for an extender.

[dlevey]

[QUOTE=Fuzzy;476120]I feel that for most people this type of viewing is absolutely the exception, and not the rule. Therefore, the Matrix switch, as opposed to the distributed method, adds a LOT of extra complexity and cost for everyday use,QUOTE]

I am sure that synced viewing is the exception, it is an exception for me as well - I don't do it that often, but it didn't cost me any more than setting up all extenders either, and it's more easily expandible. I have a monitor sitting in front of my treadmill in the exercse room. Do I use it enough to warrant buying a HD300? No, but for the cost of the 15 foot hdmi it was certainly worth it.

To send the sat dvr and the cable dvr into sage would require dual HD-PVR's (add another $300) and still require some form of RF remote or IR repeater function from every room, or possibly a USB IRT (BTW I will never again use IR repeaters - too many inconsistantcy issues)

Extra complexity? running hdmi instead of cat5e is more complex?
Complex because I have to control the switch? I have to do that anyways at the TV. More expensive? I'm in for around $1000 total and am switching and/or splitting currently to 7 locations.

80% of my viewing is the cable dvr at 4 of those locations and I can reboot the server or shutdown components without disturbing the normal tv viewing.

I wouldn't call it obsolete or expensive in any way, based on what it does.

And, more importantly, I'm not married to Sage with this arrangement. When something better is avbailable, my infrastructure will work with it by replacing a piece of software and a single device.

[Fuzzy]

My point was that with sage, you don't ever NEED to switch components. I only have a single input on any tv in my house - that being SageTV. No need for a sat or cable DVR, no need for a BluRay player - all content available everywhere, without ever switching anything.

As for the switch - I'm not sure what switch you have, but the 'average' 6x6 matrix switch is upwards of $2000+. Odds are, you have a cheaper 'passive' switch, without amplification. which might work okay if only a single client is watching each source, and that source is a short distance from the rack, but in most homes, it isn't sufficient.

Originally Posted by dlevey

I am sure that synced viewing is the exception, it is an exception for me as well - I don't do it that often, but it didn't cost me any more than setting up all extenders either, and it's more easily expandible. I have a monitor sitting in front of my treadmill in the exercse room. Do I use it enough to warrant buying a HD300? No, but for the cost of the 15 foot hdmi it was certainly worth it.

To send the sat dvr and the cable dvr into sage would require dual HD-PVR's (add another $300) and still require some form of RF remote or IR repeater function from every room, or possibly a USB IRT (BTW I will never again use IR repeaters - too many inconsistantcy issues)

I really think you're missing the point of SageTV, and how it works in relation to sat/cable boxes. The idea isn't to control the sat boxes from the tv sets. The Sage server is the only thing interacting with the boxes at all. Yes, you'd need a couple HD-PVR's for capture, and you'd need a way to control the boxes from the server (USB-UIRT does work) - but it is not the way you seem to be thinking. There's no need for RF remotes, or IR repeaters. The only interaction you have at all with the system is via the UI on the extender - which would be the same UI at all TV's - with the same remote - seemingly what you are looking for. in fact, it'd be the same UI no matter whether you are watching an OTA channel, Sat channel, cable channel, BluRay disc, Youtube video - anything.

Originally Posted by dlevey

Extra complexity? running hdmi instead of cat5e is more complex?
Complex because I have to control the switch? I have to do that anyways at the TV. More expensive? I'm in for around $1000 total and am switching and/or splitting currently to 7 locations.

No, you wouldnt' have to switch anything at the tv either - the only device connected to the TV would be the extender - and the tv would always be selected to it.

Originally Posted by dlevey

80% of my viewing is the cable dvr at 4 of those locations and I can reboot the server or shutdown components without disturbing the normal tv viewing.

I wouldn't call it obsolete or expensive in any way, based on what it does.

And, more importantly, I'm not married to Sage with this arrangement. When something better is avbailable, my infrastructure will work with it by replacing a piece of software and a single device.

And... there isn't anything better.. ;-)

[dlevey]

Originally Posted by Fuzzy

As for the switch - I'm not sure what switch you have, but the 'average' 6x6 matrix switch is upwards of $2000+. Odds are, you have a cheaper 'passive' switch, without amplification. which might work okay if only a single client is watching each source, and that source is a short distance from the rack, but in most homes, it isn't sufficient.

Switch is from Monoprice.com, 4 x 4 matrix switch for $160.I have it running 2 75 foot runs, a 20 foot run, a 5 foot run to a 4x splitter, which then splits to 20ft, 30 ft, 15 ft, and 35 ft. All working just fine with no issues.

I quite regularly have all clients watching the same source - it all works fine.

the cost of 4 HD200 when I first set this up would have been $520. (oh yeah, you needed extender licenses back then right? I don't even know what 4 would have cost, another $120?) To add the other 3 locations, even with the now cheaper HD300 would be another $450, 2 HD-PVR boxes is another $300.

After having the HD300 now - I'd really want to replace all the HD200 units for another $600.

If I don't want to rent cable or Sat stb's for $5/month, why would I want to spend $150 per location for something that will need replacing in a few years?

I understand that there isn't anything better than Sage right now, inevitably there will be.

I recognize my setup isn't for everybody. I've chosen this way for a variety of reasons not the smallest of which is that it evolved this way, but we started this conversation because I wanted a simple thing, a menu option to either play local, or play to extender. Of all of the things that Sage can do, many of which I could argue are rarely used by most people, this is pretty small, especially considering it is a supported action, jkust not currently built into the UI.

[BobPhoenix]

Originally Posted by dlevey

(oh yeah, you needed extender licenses back then right? I don't even know what 4 would have cost, another $120?)

Actually a SageTV extender either CAME with a license (HD100) or is built into the device (HD200, HD300 - don't need a separately entered license anyway). The MVP extender was the one that required a purchase of an extender license.

[Mike]

Originally Posted by GKusnick

I disagree. For synchronized multizone playback, a gaggle of HD300s won't cut it. You need a single source feeding a matrix switch.

Or get the manufacturers to give us 1394 enabled devices so we can do away with the matrix switches and a whole lot of cable to boot.