Blindscan .py files

[Huevos]

Is there any way to get a copy of the blindscan .py files in a readable format so I can change some of the parameters? I've run
opkg install enigma2-srcbut it did not create the .py files I want to read. I'm trying to scan lower symbol rates and C-band, which the hardware is perfectly capable of, but the software limits are stopping this.

[Rob van der Does]

Try

opkg install enigma2-plugin-vix-core-src

[Huevos]

Try

opkg install enigma2-plugin-vix-core-srcNo luck with that Rob. Still only got the .pyo files showing after installing that.

The files I am trying to read are here: /usr/lib/enigma2/python/Plugins/SystemPlugins/Blindscan

Thanks for your help.

[Rob van der Does]

Then you should be able to find it on the ViX-GIT (www.assembla.com look for openvix).

[Huevos]

Then you should be able to find it on the ViX-GIT (www.assembla.com look for openvix).I've spent about 20 minutes searching that site but I don't really know what I'm looking for.

[Rob van der Does]

Here you are:

[Huevos]

Thanks Rob.

I can see huge scope to improve this plug-in so that the user interface is a lot more friendly, and not so "sciencey". Right now the user has to enter a huge amount of data, and this could be simplified a lot just by doing a little bit of maths in the background. For example the user has to enter the IF frequency, rather than the frequencies listed on KoS or Lyngsat, and to do that correctly they need knowledge of how IF/RF conversion is done and then do a 5-figure calculation. Also the routine is overlapping so certain parts of the spectrum are getting scanned multiple times (time consuming and could find the same channels twice). C-band scanning needs to be sorted out too and I am trying to work out where the problem is (right now it does the scan but fines nothing).

Anyway once I get to the bottom of the problems (and come up with "fixes") how is it possible to submit these? I've not done any coding in Python before so any "improvements" I did come up with would be pretty flaky from the code perspective.

[Rob van der Does]

tbh: it was only after your yesterday's posts that we found out ourselves that indeed IF's are needed to feed this plugin. Of course this should not be the case.
Once "you've got to the bottom of the problems" please inform us (could do via a post here or a PM to me, or via Skype), and let's talk it through. The result of that should be that we also get to the same "bottom": once that's the case you can safely leave all coding to our personal wizard Andy.

[Huevos]

Once "you've got to the bottom of the problems" please inform usRob, I have attached some notes regarding this. Also I'd be more than happy helping out when it comes to testing.

[Rob van der Does]

Thanks very much; we'll come back to you.

[Rob van der Does]

Thanks again for your contribution: I even seem to understand your essay!

A question though: in the math's you do, you seem to be using the values for a Universal LNB. But also LNB's having a different LOF can be used. So that would have to be a variable based on the values entered in the tunerconfig.
Correct?
Of course that also has to be done behind the screens, but the algorithm must be universal.

Edit: and using Unicable LNB's would even be more problematic I think.......

[Huevos]

A question though: in the math's you do, you seem to be using the values for a Universal LNB. But also LNB's having a different LOF can be used. So that would have to be a variable based on the values entered in the tunerconfig.
Correct?

Yes, that is correct. The maths is for Universal.

In tuner config the options are Universal, C-band, Unicable, and User defined. TBH, I've worked doing installs and maintenance for quite a few years and the only LNBs I've ever come across on digital systems have been Universal, Quattro and C-band. From the receiver perspective Quattro works identical to Universal once the multiswitch is inline. I believe they use Unicable for Italian communal pay-tv systems but for such a system there wouldn't be much point for blind scan.

Anyway whether we are scanning C-band or Ku can easily be determined by frequency, but working out LNB type would depend on whether the blindscan script has access to the LNB type that was entered in the tuner config.

[Rob van der Does]

Unicable is very useful for normal household use: having one myself (although not in use at the moment, but I'm planning to use it again shortly).
For the rest I think you're right: universal will be the way to go.

[Huevos]

What do you think about this... (RF inputs and scans C-band). Seems to work ok on the Ultimo.

[Rob van der Does]

Looks great!