SageTV XBMC plugin

[OneOfMany]

Although I use PC clients, I would love the option, and am willing to pay for licenses in the event that I may use them in the future

Grant

[Skirge01]

Originally Posted by sflamm

With that said, we can always try the kickstarter route... I'll set one up and see what happens.

If you decide to try that, check out Indiegogo, as well. KS seems much more strict with what's required for a project and funding options. You could very well be right that the licensing model is the better route, but I really have no clue. As I said, I was just wondering about options.

If you want to put up a crowdfunding project, don't do it yet. Wait until more interest it stirred up and a lot more people have had a chance to find the threads about it. These forums aren't perused like they were in the "old days". I'm honestly thinking that you should continue hammering out a plan here, gathering input from people for a few months. I think the more this is discussed, the more likely someone from the forums might decide it's worthy of their time.

The worst Kickstarters I've seen were the ones which didn't have all their ducks in a row. Check out this article. While they're focusing on getting a game funded, a bunch of the principles still apply. Crowdfunding isn't as simple as just throwing something up on a site and hoping for the best. The first question is going to be: Who is my target audience and how do I let them know about this project? I don't have a good answer for that.

Another concern is going to be finding a developer. I read about one KS project which didn't have a company lined up to produce their products before they started the KS. Once funded, all the production companies knew EXACTLY how much money the company had from the KS, so they inflated their prices accordingly. Also, a "cheap developer" isn't always the right developer. You might get better coding at a faster rate with a more expensive developer. It might be worthwhile to PM some of the devs on here to get their insight in a less public format.

Sorry, sflamm, I feel like all I'm doing is being a downer in this thread. I hope that's not how it's perceived because that's not my intention at all. I'm honestly trying to help get this going because I really want to see it succeed.

[sflamm]

Appreciate the input. Your points are well taken and consistent with my experience planning/delivering software.

No worries - my plan is to line up a very qualified developer before I post a Kickstarter project. In fact I have already spoken to one who is going to take a careful look at the API, the code for the existing XBMC PVR plugins, as well as a quick review of the SageTV APIs as they exist (I have the expertise myself but unfortunately doubt I have the time - but certainly I can contribute in some form). I also expect that we would get the support from folks like you who are already very familiar with the SageTV APIs, data structures, etc.

The only reason I cited a 'cheap' developer at $75/hr instead of a senior developer is to point out that the project would be funded (by donators) and developed at a reasonable cost. The idea here is that a valuable plugin should be produced and the developers should be reasonably compensated but no one is looking to make profits.

The plan is to wait until I am certain that my initial estimate of time/effort (120 man hours) and cost ($75/hr) are validated by the perspective developer. That way everything is lined up for funding - and the question will be if we can raise enough awareness/support from the SageTV community to get it successfully funded.

Unfortunately - as you said, the forums are not nearly as active as they once were. I dont think that waiting for folks to find this will be successful. Especially since the category is 'General' which is rarely looked at by the average SageTV forum visitor. I think we will need to think how to be more creative or see if we can get Opus' help marketing it... list of forum members....

[7up]

I hope Opus allows some sort of communication method for reaching out to registered forum members. With regards to the actual XBMC plug-in software you are considering, do you only want a Windows version or do you want code which can be compiled for Linux, OSX and/or Android? While there are limited STB options now, Android support would seem to be the simplest path to add an extender without the need for building a miniPC. I suspect Firetube will run a version of Android

[LWM4P]

Originally Posted by sflamm

If it is a kickstarter project then the code will end up as open source and anyone of the key SageTV contributors will be able to maintain/update it.

If it is a license model then whoever is collecting for the licenses will be obligated to maintain it for some maintenance period (part of the agreement of purchasing a license). I imagine it would still return to the open domain after some period of time... just like all the other plugins that eventually became free.

I think the real question is, why bother? My reasoning is this: There are tons of back-ends that can do the same stuff as Sage in terms of strict recording functionality. The real problem in these scenarios comes in the integration. No two applications can be integrated together better than one application that is built to do both things. True fact. Most of the time, it is just infeasible or impractical to have one application covering the gamut... so we integrate. In this scenario, how is having an xbmc plugin for sage any different than the other back-ends out there? The power of sage was that it was all in one application and worked seamlessly.

[sflamm]

do you only want a Windows version or do you want code which can be compiled for Linux, OSX and/or Android

Since the plugin is C++ code for XBMC it should work anywhere that XBMC is... (e.g. Raspberry PI or anywhere else XBMC resides).

Of course SageTV Server will have to run on a Windows box.

In this scenario, how is having an xbmc plugin for sage any different than the other back-ends out there? The power of sage was that it was all in one application and worked seamlessly.

A few good reasons:

1. If you already have a working SageTV infrastructure there is no reason to fix what isn't broken ... and it is significant work to redo the backend, and then you must migrate all of your favorites, previous recordings etc.
2. SageTV works well - better than the other backend solutions IMHO
3. Existing SageTV extenders / SageTV clients will continue to work great and ... New small form factor XBMC based extenders can be added to the system with no new configuration (favorites etc are still setup in SageTV - XBMC is only viewing).

[7up]

Originally Posted by LWM4P

I think the real question is, why bother? My reasoning is this: There are tons of back-ends that can do the same stuff as Sage in terms of strict recording functionality. The real problem in these scenarios comes in the integration. No two applications can be integrated together better than one application that is built to do both things. True fact. Most of the time, it is just infeasible or impractical to have one application covering the gamut... so we integrate. In this scenario, how is having an xbmc plugin for sage any different than the other back-ends out there? The power of sage was that it was all in one application and worked seamlessly.

I tend to agree with much of what you've said but there are advantages to using sageTV as backend. While I'm sure there are many more, off the top of my head:

-stability
-familiarity
-ability to use existing HD200/300 and add addition extenders or replacements
-recording are mpeg2 or h.264 vs. wtv
-comskip
-view recordings from XBMC

Perhaps the most obvious is no need to rebuild/reconfigure existing server and connected sources.

I do recognize nextPVR and mediaportal don't have some of the same restrictions as WMC and perhaps an argument could be made to just switch teams and call it a day? I like the idea of an XBMC live TV plug-in only because its potentially a easy way to add extenders, albeit maybe not as fully featured as an HD300 but still functional. In a fantasy world, I'd love someone to develop an Android app that replicates the functionality of an HD300 which could be loaded on an inexpensive STB... but since that's not going to happen an XBMC plug-in seems like a reasonable option.

Hey Jeff, could you release the SageTV client source code?

[Skirge01]

Originally Posted by LWM4P

In this scenario, how is having an xbmc plugin for sage any different than the other back-ends out there? The power of sage was that it was all in one application and worked seamlessly.

There's a reason a lot of people are still running SageTV. Everyone has their own reasons and all are quite valid to the individual. However, (while admitting I'm not a programmer) I don't see all that much of a difference between interfacing XBMC with the SageTV backend and almost completely rewriting the STV in Studio, a la Gemstone, Phoenix, etc. Technologically, I understand it's quite different, but the fact is that you're still tying two things together: a server and a client. As long as the architecture is in place, go for it. Will it be perfect? Nope. Find me a piece of software that is, though.

To quote JFK: “You see things; and you say, ‘Why?’ But I dream things that never were; and I say, ‘Why not?’"

[LWM4P]

Yes, you all make some good points about familiarity and current setup.. which is why I voted that I would buy it if stuff was resurrected.

My family is going to want to have one interface to work with, so if I transition them to an XBMC interface, I will get rid of the sage interface. So then I still can't help thinking stuff like: You mean if I want to put in a new favorite, I might have to go to my laptop, use client or VNC into the server to get to the backend and then enter in some new favorite? What about recording conflicts? What about any other typical functions that I do often? What can I control and what can't I? When you really read into any of these systems being used as a back-end, there is always functionality lost in the integration.

[Evil_Attorney]

Originally Posted by 7up

I hope Opus allows some sort of communication method for reaching out to registered forum members.

If you want to send an email to a good chunk of registered Sage users, use the unofficial alt Sagetv google groups: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!fo...l-sagetv-forum

or use the G+ group.

[Skirge01]

Originally Posted by sflamm

Appreciate the input. Your points are well taken and consistent with my experience planning/delivering software.

<snip>

Unfortunately - as you said, the forums are not nearly as active as they once were. I dont think that waiting for folks to find this will be successful. Especially since the category is 'General' which is rarely looked at by the average SageTV forum visitor. I think we will need to think how to be more creative or see if we can get Opus' help marketing it... list of forum members....

First, glad to hear it. This unemotional internet thing can often cause issues with that.

Second, what about G+? I think quite a few people flocked to G+ when (I think it was) Jeff headed there. Social networking might be the best option for getting the word out.

EDIT: Looks like writing that up and then heading to lunch caused Evil Attorney to beat me to the punch on G+.

[Skirge01]

Originally Posted by LWM4P

My family is going to want to have one interface to work with, so if I transition them to an XBMC interface, I will get rid of the sage interface. So then I still can't help thinking stuff like: You mean if I want to put in a new favorite, I might have to go to my laptop, use client or VNC into the server to get to the backend and then enter in some new favorite? What about recording conflicts? What about any other typical functions that I do often? What can I control and what can't I? When you really read into any of these systems being used as a back-end, there is always functionality lost in the integration.

You're absolutely right. That's why I'd want to see a project plan for what the objectives are for this before funding it. I don't want to have to manage two different systems; to me, that would defeat the purpose of this endeavor.

My initial thoughts would be:

1. Live TV (mainly for live events)
2. Recorded show knowledge (watched to what point? etc)
3. EPG (browsing, scheduling)
4. Scheduling/manipulation of favorites
5. Ability to delete shows after watching

I think that's the core functionality that I use. The solutions put together so far for combining SageTV & XBMC have been missing one or more of these.

[sflamm]

Items #1-6 are all enabled in XBMC by implementing the PVR Add-on API which is simply put the goal of the project / entire scope.

For more info see the PVR API spec on the XBMC site and the already existing add-ons for the other Backends.

[Evil_Attorney]

Originally Posted by Skirge01

My initial thoughts would be:

1. Live TV (mainly for live events)
2. Recorded show knowledge (watched to what point? etc)
3. EPG (browsing, scheduling)
4. Scheduling/manipulation of favorites
5. Ability to delete shows after watching

This is a good list. I would add:
6. Notifications - I like to know if my tuners/HDPVRs are causing problems.
7. Resolving Recording Conflicts - Live TV can often interfere with scheduled favorite recordings, so some type of pop-up selection would be nice.

The more I think about it, the more complex this project seems. I wonder if XBMC's PVR software even contemplates some of these features at this point.

[sflamm]

What you need to keep in mind is the PVR add-on API is designed to leverage the XBMC front end user experience and use a 3rd party PVR as the Backend (Backend UX not used).

There is no possibility of using both to schedule recordings and for the schedule to be maintained / manipulated by both... The databases are not synchronized. Nor does it make sense for an API to support that.
Once a piece of media is present (video, tv, music) both systems can independently pull down meta data etc to support the experience in the respective UIs - but again the data is / will not be synced.

[sflamm]

If you want to send an email to a good chunk of registered Sage users, use the unofficial alt Sagetv google groups: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!fo...l-sagetv-forum

or use the G+ group.

Great pointer - thanks.

[sflamm]

I've been taking a closer look at XBMC... as far as I can tell it does not have any scheduling capabilities in the UI itself. It is simply a front-end user experience to shows that have been recorded. So when you configure a PVR backend you must use the PVR backend's UI to create/maintain recording schedules.

Only for liveTV does the XBMC display a channel guide (using the information returned from the PVR backend) and allow live tuning. It appears that to XBMC the PVR backend looks like a single tuner. As such - I dont believe XBMC has any way to show a priori that the tuners might all be in use...

Any one have experience with XBMC who can comment on this?

[7up]

First let me say that I am by no means an "expert" at XBMC. I setup serverWMC and XBMC on my desktop PC to test it out in my free time, which unfortunately isn't much these days. Windows 7 backend PC currently has 4 OTA HD tuners, and I can manually select and recorded 4 shows at the same time from the XBMC client EPG with no problem. Ability to schedule a timer is primitive and seems like something from an 80's VCR. Scheduling conflicts are also problematic. How much of this limitation of XBMC, serverWMC and/or both I don't know. Perhaps someone else who has tried NextPVR/XBMC can comment on its ability to handle conflicts and scheduling.

[LWM4P]

Originally Posted by sflamm

What you need to keep in mind is the PVR add-on API is designed to leverage the XBMC front end user experience and use a 3rd party PVR as the Backend (Backend UX not used).

There is no possibility of using both to schedule recordings and for the schedule to be maintained / manipulated by both... The databases are not synchronized. Nor does it make sense for an API to support that.
Once a piece of media is present (video, tv, music) both systems can independently pull down meta data etc to support the experience in the respective UIs - but again the data is / will not be synced.

I disagree. I think this is a great example of what a robust API should do... it doesn't mean keeping the databases synchronized, but means that the api exposes the information and the ability to manipulate that information. With that, you can have as many systems as you want controlling the stuff. Sounds like the sage api may not expose all that functionality.

[7up]

one more thing I just discovered. If all tuners are in use, if you go back to EPG and select a different channel to watch, you get an error msg that says something like "no tuners available" with no option for conflict resolution other than to manually go back to EPG and cancel one of the active recordings.