CI conax module + valid card not working

[IAmATeaf]

Now that explanation I too understand and I've learnt something as I hadn't appreciated that the core of BH was so different.

[rte]

I wonder if I've got i right now.
So the firmware manufacturer VU+ will not create a CAM-driver for ViX/PLi-environment but for all the other environments.
Is there a policy conflict between VU+ and Vix-team?
It reminds me of the earlier problems with USB-WiFi-dongles.

[IAmATeaf]

No, it is that BH and VTi are still pretty close to the original Vu images in terms of library files whereas OpenPLi and ViX have moved and updated core parts so that the drivers and these updated core parts now cause these types of issues.

So until Vu refresh their drivers to take into account updated libraries there's nothing that ViX can do unless they take really drastic actions with their images.

[Larry-G]

I wonder if I've got i right now.
So the firmware manufacturer VU+ will not create a CAM-driver for ViX/PLi-environment but for all the other environments.
Is there a policy conflict between VU+ and Vix-team?
It reminds me of the earlier problems with USB-WiFi-dongles.

No, he said that the Build environment or Image base used by Vu+ for their OI ( official original image ) is basically 5 years out of date and this is what they build their drivers for, ViX and the OE-Alliance, even Pli to a certain degree are far more upto date than the OI ( BH and VTI are built from this very old code too ).

so Vu+ need to get with the times and update or you will start to see even more compatibility issues between the old images OI, BH, VTI and those who are constantly updating and innovating. Pli, ViX and the OE-Alliance.

[Larry-G]

No, it is that BH and VTi are still pretty close to the original Vu images in terms of library files whereas OpenPLi and ViX have moved and updated core parts so that the drivers and these updated core parts now cause these types of issues.

So until Vu refresh their drivers to take into account updated libraries there's nothing that ViX can do unless they take really drastic actions with their images.

Even Pli are old when considered against the new OE used by the OE-Alliance and ViX.

[Rob van der Does]

There's no 'policy conflict'; it's about the way drivers are being compiled.
If drivers are dependant on fixed libraries, and we use younger versions of such a library, this kind of issue can happen.
Normally a driver would be compiled for a more generic environment, or for libraries equal to or greater then a specific version. And as I said: drivers are closed source, and from the outside we can't see what's in it or what they depend on.

[rte]

The fact remains. VU+ is not willing to refresh more compatible drivers for CAMs. This is a policy issue and must be made generally known. The consequences will be visible on the market. Who wants to buy a retarded receiver?

[Larry-G]

The fact remains. VU+ is not willing to refresh more compatible drivers for CAMs. This is a policy issue and must be made generally known. The consequences will be visible on the market. Who wants to buy a retarded receiver?

The last time we made a statement about the driver support from Vu+ and withheld the ViX Vu+ solo2 image in protest, we received nothing but abuse and wild accusations from all parties, so we will not take any stance on such actions, thats for Vu+ to sort out them selves.

[Rob van der Does]

I think I mentioned it before: hardly anybody uses a CAM in an E2-receiver. And for a good reason: softcams allow much more freedom (i.e. multiple decryption, decrypted recordings).
So I can't believe anybody will be impressed by your announcement. And besides, as you experienced yourself: there's an easy solution by using professional instead of hobby firmware.

[Larry-G]

I think I mentioned it before: hardly anybody uses a CAM in an E2-receiver. And for a good reason: softcams allow much more freedom (i.e. multiple decryption, decrypted recordings).
So I can't believe anybody will be impressed by your announcement. And besides, as you experienced yourself: there's an easy solution by using professional instead of hobby firmware.

I my self have some 50 plus cam modules but none has been used in a receiver in years, IF sky uk obeyed the law and produced a cam module a lot more people would gladly use them, my self included.

[rte]

I must have missed some fundamental information about SoftCam-programs. Is it possible to use softcam with legal cards from local terrestial and cable TV-distributors in VU+ card slot/Zeus? That would be fine but so far I have had no success.

[Rob van der Does]

Yes.
There is a variety of softcams, all with their pro's and cons. Most cards will work, given a proper set up.

[rte]

I guess, advice for proper set up will not be given here? Can you give me a hint where to go?
It is good to mention that all attemps for card sharing are definitely out of question in my case.

[kvarnstj]

HI again!
I found a workaround for the non-working CAM module (in VIX), It is to use oscam softcam instead, having the card in VU+ own card slot. CCcam did not work, at least for my cabletv card. In fact neither did the latest oscam version which is downloadable via the download links (r9059), however r8625 was able to decrypt the channels. However there is still some problem, after about 15-30 minutes of watching the channels stop working. Restarting the oscam will bring them up again for another 15-30 minutes.

[rte]

Pls tell me more. I have oscam.5953 in Vuultimo, but oscam doesn't start. Is that the wrong version? Do I have to do something special with the configuration? Which one of the two card slots do I have to use: upper or lower? Is the card placed the chipside up or down?