STV: SageMC Part 2 - Page 3

lotusvball · #41 03-10-2005, 08:48 PM

How do you do that with an ATI Remote Wonder?

Wheemer · #42 03-10-2005, 09:11 PM

That really depends on what software you are using to enable your Remote wonder.

You need to map a button to the keystroke alt-left.

briands · #43 03-11-2005, 09:05 AM

Just trying to continue interest in this STV ...

Wheemer has posted link to some new graphics here

Looks pretty slick...

skyw33 · #44 03-17-2005, 09:46 PM

I would really like SageMC to be more mouse click aware. Specifically, I would like to be able to click on the information/time bar such that the video will fast forward or rewind to the time spot you click. Other mouse support would be nice, but this is the one feature that seems necessary.
Jonathan

falchulk · #45 03-18-2005, 07:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by skyw33

I would really like SageMC to be more mouse click aware. Specifically, I would like to be able to click on the information/time bar such that the video will fast forward or rewind to the time spot you click. Other mouse support would be nice, but this is the one feature that seems necessary.
Jonathan

Wheemer seems to be changing things slightly but Mlbdudes original vision was to only have remote support.

mlbdude · #46 03-19-2005, 11:02 AM

Anyone want to test a 16x9 version of SageMC for me?

http://sage.welchkin.net/forums/viewtopic.php?p=335#335

thatdude90210 · #47 03-19-2005, 10:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mlbdude

Anyone want to test a 16x9 version of SageMC for me?

http://sage.welchkin.net/forums/viewtopic.php?p=335#335

Looks good so far, thanks. At first I didn't realized that the bluetwo mod steel skin wasn't part of the STV so I thought that my download was messed up. Heh, then I read that forum a little more.

Watter · #48 03-21-2005, 09:29 PM

Ok, I was going to wait until I had finished my implementation of comskip but since mlbdude has integrated Malore's comskip, I guess I'll bring this up now.

I'm no longer going to be doing any development work on SageMC (if you can call the limited amount I've done "development"). Going into this I had very different expectations of the environment that I would be developing in and I based my time expectations on those wrong assumptions. It's reached the point where I actually DREAD sitting down and working on SageMC and frankly, there's just now way I'm going to put my limited free time into something I dislike doing. Added to that is that fact that as of next week I won't be using SageTV any more and my motivation factor is a negative 100.

I am going to continue my comskip work (it works quite differently from malore's/cayer's) and I may even finish it sometime, but when I do I'll just append it to whetever the current version currently is out in the wild if people are interested in it. It may be that I'm the only one who cares about the kind of things I'm making it do.

I'm not sure if anyone is interested, but when I was practicing my "Studio" skills I converted all of the initial setup menus (channel setup, tuner setup, etc.) and parental control menus into the SageMC style. If there's any interest in these, I will integrate them into the new version that mlbdude has posted on here on the forums.

mlbdude's work on SageMC is what finally pushed SageTV over the hump for me and I was honestly intent on doing big things with it. I sincerely apologize for the high expectations and low output that has characterized my stewardship of this STV.

mikejaner · #49 03-21-2005, 11:26 PM

Curious,
What did you switch to Watter?

ukmgranger · #50 03-22-2005, 04:21 AM

Sorry to hear that Watter!
Thanks for the input and the implementation of the new forum. I know I wasn't a fan of the new originally - but I soon saw that it was for the best.

Hopefully someone else will pick up the SageMC flame.

As mikejaner said: what are you moving to?

Wheemer · #51 03-22-2005, 04:27 AM

Although it seems unlikely that SageMC will develop at the fast pace it was originally moving at, It would be nice if MlbDude continued it's evolution. Nobody could jump in and do things as easily as the creator. It seems that an update like the 16x9/comskip every once in a while would be good.

Otherwise, perhaps if there are small changes needed they could be handled by others. It's better to spread the load amoungst as many as willing.

I'm running the new 16x9 version and it works perfectly fine on 4x3... haven't tried comskip yet.

Perhaps MlbDude can include the extra pages that Watter has completed rather than wasting them.

Watter · #52 03-22-2005, 08:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikejaner

Curious,
What did you switch to Watter?

I firmly believe that SageTV is the best PC based PVR system available, but the allure of HDTV was just too much for me. I'm switching to my cable company's set top DVR. The provide all of my locals, quite a few sports events, and a few other channels in HD. The UI is just horrible... HORRIBLE; but I can live with it until PC based PVR systems can record and playback HDTV via a PCI cablecard receiver or something similar.

mlbdude · #53 03-22-2005, 08:59 AM

I am running a cable company DVD right next to my PC PVR

. It is horrible but gets the job done. I now only use the PCPVR for non-HD recordings since I get limited HD space on the DVR box. Can't wait till good HD solutions are available for PC's.

flashbacck · #54 03-22-2005, 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Watter

I'm not sure if anyone is interested, but when I was practicing my "Studio" skills I converted all of the initial setup menus (channel setup, tuner setup, etc.) and parental control menus into the SageMC style. If there's any interest in these, I will integrate them into the new version that mlbdude has posted on here on the forums.

Yeah, I'd be interested in the converted menus. If you could post them, I'd appreciate it.

aperry · #55 03-23-2005, 12:40 AM

I sure hope someone picks this up and continues development on it. For me, this STV offers a HUUUUGGGEEEE WAF. It gives her the MCE-ish look/feel, and she really likes it due to its simplicity.

Cayars, while awesome to me, did not go over well with the spousal unit. Way too complicated for her to take the time to learn (even though I told her that there was a very small subset that she would want/need).

Anyhow, please tell me that SageMC will not die. Or give me a copy of Studio so that I can maintain my own copy...

MTuckman · #56 04-01-2005, 01:34 PM

I wish I had seen this post earlier... I would love to jump in and continue the development of this STV, but Frey has said they have closed their beta test. I spent a month trying to get a response from them, only to be told that they closed it. I am actually getting more than a bit frustrated by this.

I do not understand why the interest in developing STV's is diminishing. Just how bad is the Studio environment?

I have been developing software for close to 20 years now, and have worked on everything on IBM mainframes, IBM midrange, PC in everything from Cobol to RPG to Visual Basic/C/C# to Java. This would not be the first development environment to get killed by its own complexity.

The thing I want to do the most, is to incorporate the progress bar like the one that Meekel did, from the Teehan+lax interface document.

This is more than a little frustrating!!!

scbundy · #57 04-01-2005, 02:04 PM

I'm hoping that Sage 3.0 has a much better Studio than the current one. From what I've heard, it's a nightmare.

Anyway, we can hold out hope that when 3.0 is released it will be packaged with a new version of Studio for everyone to use.

briands · #58 04-02-2005, 09:11 AM

I won't be holding my breath for that...

stanger89 · #59 04-02-2005, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MTuckman

I wish I had seen this post earlier... I would love to jump in and continue the development of this STV, but Frey has said they have closed their beta test. I spent a month trying to get a response from them, only to be told that they closed it. I am actually getting more than a bit frustrated by this.

I think they mean it's a closed Beta, ie not public, not that they ended/stopped/closed it.

stanger89 · #60 04-02-2005, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scbundy

I'm hoping that Sage 3.0 has a much better Studio than the current one. From what I've heard, it's a nightmare.

What can I say? That's a good question. I'll put it this way, Studio is amazing, as evidenced by what the STV creators have done. Like has been said, it's much more than a skinning interface. But it's kind of a matter of expectation. Studio is, well, not what most expect, so you kind of go through Wow!, Huh?, Oh! I could do this, phases. I think Watter is in the Huh? phase. Some probably won't get past it. I know I'm still sort of in that phase. Basically, because of the power, stuff can take time, and being that most with Studio have full time jobs, and other priories, they may not want to take on the responsibility of maintaining an STV. I know I've got some ideas, but not much time.

Quote:

Anyway, we can hold out hope that when 3.0 is released it will be packaged with a new version of Studio for everyone to use.

I hope they do something, but the reality is, Studio, as it is now, is not what most users want, and it probably never will be. I think an ideal scenario, would be to move Sage more to something like mlbdude and neilm have done/are doing where much of the interface is defined by XML files, so that the average user can easily "skin" it themselves. And then probably get a few more people into the private beta.

But those are just my thoughts,

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)