iRule - Page 4

Thanks. You were right, though, that it doesn't really address the problem -- I still want an easy way to send commands to the iTach from a web page.

I think ultimately, all remote control programs like iRule will need to have a web component. If I'm sitting at my computer (which is often) and want to control something in my house, it's a lot easier to pull up a web page than to: grab my iPhone, turn it on, hit the slider, click on iRule, wait because the last page I left was linked to a computer that is no longer on and it's trying to connect to a gateway that doesn't exist, exit iRule, shut down iRule, start it back up so it starts in the right screen, scroll through a few pages to find my command, and hit it.

Got the Aquos working, though there are odd situations with the sequencing of commands when sending commands to multiple devices. I ended up using the codes for another Aquos LCD that was in the devices list.

Now I just have to figure out how to get Directv working and why my entrances commands don't fire...

Is there a definitive, detailed user's guide for iRule?

Has anyone been able to create a small track-pad on a page in iRule? I want to be able to use it on any page with my HTPC without having to switch out of iRule to another app to use a mouse.

Thx
Flan

Poste this a couple other places on AVS but thought I would try here since I know many of you use the PS3 and do av distribution. I am also active in this thread so maybe will get a bit more response that I have elsewhere. I use irule to control everything currently, includin the PS3.

Trying to send ps3 video and audio to 2 TVs:

I have my PS3 in the basement, attached via HDMI to a Denon 1908 receiver and then to a my Sony KD60-3000A TV. I have an old pioneer av receiver in the basement feeding stereo speakers in my living room for playing itunes from my pc and a cd player. Bluetooth is not an issue, I can get the signal in the living room to the ps3 in the basement.

I ordered the 1x2 pro hdmi splitter from monoprice. What is the best way to get the signal from the PS3 to my LG 1080p TV in the living room? I'd like to keep 7.1 available in the basement, but would go to 5.1 if needed. Should I:

PS3 --> Splitter and then to Denon and LG TV
PS3 --> denon --> splitter and on to both tvs
Or?

Sound is the other issue. I can turn multiout on in the PS3 options, split the hdmi signal before the AVR, send the analog audio to the pioneer and then to the speakers in the living room.

the PS3 will never be used in both rooms at the same time.

What you are really arguing for is a centralized server within the home talks to the iTach (and other gateways) and can be controlled either through a web interface or from a remote on a mobile device. Such a server might run on your existing (always-on) PC, or a dedicated PC or embedded device. (Lots of cheap Linux solutions, including re-purposing cheap routers.) This is been discussed here before, and does seem the optimal solution, but I think you'll have to look for that solution elsewhere, as the developers seem rather intractable on this (as well as other issues).

It really isn't possible for "a web page" to do what you are asking. It has to be some kind of software - whether server-side or client-side. You could possibly do it in Javascript, but in that case the client is actually doing it and you are not going to solve any issues of multiple clients, as you will still have multiple clients. Otherwise, you need to use server-side scripting.

Such a server doesn't "automatically" deal with issues of multiple clients. Yes, you would only have one client accessing the gateways, but then you still have to deal with the logic of what to do when multiple clients make conflicting or competing requests. This really needs to be thought out throughly for EACH gateway and EACH piece of equipment, given knowledge of how the equipment reacts to commands, the effect of "interleaving" commands, etc.

Jtara is absolutely correct. I have been doing this (home Theater / Home Automation) for quite some time (25+ years) having started with a Kloss Novabeam. Sooner or later you come to the realization that you need a centralized control point with enough flexibility and power to do the things you want. Crestron came to that conclusion very early in the game as did Phast, AMX, and lastly Savant. There is one open source group going down that path using android based system as the handheld, but involving a central control point.

The Pronto PRO came pretty close to operating without a central control point when it was dedicated to a single major function like the home theater. It got a little less perfect when you had multiple Pronto's and multiple control paradigms (HT vs HA). Being a major pronto user I went for the Central control point as I already had it.

The advantages of a central control point are many fold. First of all they are inexpensive (Now that is, $500 gets you a very good one). They allow you to migrate the handlheld and its GUI very quickly. I was able to completely port my system from the Pronto to the iRule model in about a week with 90% of the time spent on graphics and layout. Any Pronto in the house and any iPad or iPod can control the theater at any time with no conflicts. I am a widower so there are no surfing wars. I do not require extensive two way, since the theater has its own auxiliary status display managed by the control device, and each room has its own in wall touch screen. I also use audio a lot for status out of the HA system. For example you can ask the HA system the weather (from the iPad) and have it spoken in the room you are in, or over the whole house.

I am sure the iRule model will get beter and more robust. The issue with 2-way will come down sooner or later to programability. There are just too many manufacturers doing their own thing with no standards being setup, let alone ascribed to.

The major disadvantage to the central control point is that you need the ability to Program, not design graphics, not do web things, but to actually write code in a programming language like VB or C++ or Javascript. Once you can do that the world is your oyster and you just need to fetch the pearls.

I can totally understand your point, but I wanted to speak from the opposite viewpoint. I have never been involved with AV Control until this project. I am a former software engineer and run software companies now. I can state unequivocally that the number one goal now must be radically simplifying this process.

I am very technical, I joined the Crestron group on Yahoo, read much of RemoteCentral, and followed this forum. I bought any new gear with the specific requirement of IP connectibility, installed an iTach IP2IR, and dedicated myself to getting iRule to work.

I am excited, but let there be no mistake that the view from here is grim. The manufacturer's have created a world based on completely unreliable or erratically implemented technologies like IR that require a Masters in patience and brute force to get working.

Worse, one high end audio/video installer in my area pushes the gear of companies that seem to be indifferent to the struggles of getting home entertainment to work and actively mocked me for buying Denon, the only component that actually worked well!

I started this project because I was building out a HT/whole-house wiring project and I had never been to a house where the wife could operate the HT system. I knew that I could spend tens of thousands on Crestron, etc., but I was not that satisfied with those systems in the end.

The major issue is that the suppliers of equipment have adopted an approach that hidden, non-standard control codes and inputs are a strategic benefit. I cannot discern whether it comes from ignorance, apathy, or outright scorn for their customers, but I know that any piece of equipment that I would buy would be more valuable if my family could turn it on than if it had marginally better amps or signal processing.

I believe that the installer community is enabling this and I would suggest based on my experience as a consumer that this community of enthusiasts and installers make a hard line against any manufacturer that does not commit to open codes, IP (and serial for the old guys...), and testing in a consumer environment.

The basic standard is that a device should be able to be added to wired control system and controllable within ten minutes. If Denon can do it, they all can do it. Sonos has the higher satisfaction among the people I know than the iPhone! As a community of educated consumers and installers, we should make our decisions with integration as a primary consideration.

Make no mistake, it was easier to set up a Racal Vadic Modem to connect to DJNRS from an IBM 3101 in 1976 as an eight year old than it has been for me to get my Philips DVD player to reliably respond to an IR power toggle request in 2010.

That is totally unacceptable. It is time to make it known. No more purchases from suppliers without published codes and proven direct wire integration.

Newbie here. After waiting in vain for Bobby Remote to support the iTach, I've spent the last few days porting to iRule. The IP and RS-232 support is a nice bonus. Nice work. I had forgotten that my DirecTV receiver even had an ethernet port and you are helping Denon to sell me a new amplifier some time soon.

My number one enhancement request would be the ability to define "global macros" that could then be nested in the entrance macros or button macros. For example, I need to set my AV amplifier music mode in multiple places. It would be nice to do that once in a macro and reuse it where needed.

I am in the early stages of planning a whole house system based around iRule, a Denon AV amplifier and Sonos using iPad controllers throughout the house. I'll second the requests to call the Sonos app from iRule.

So what are you using as a browser for I-Rule Builder?

I just want something that works so I can get down to building my app. With the I-Pad, Itach, and assorted accessories I have about a grand invested in hobby project this to date. I don't care who makes it, just want a reliable browser for I-Rule. Plus you can have as many browers as youwant and use them as needed for different apps.

Respectifully disagree.

I can do all that! Have done it on the broadcast side for years. The App on my HT page is written in C form the ground up and runs on DOS! I wrote the Ethernet driver on the chip register level. I guess I'm too old. I just have a mental block with WEB page programming. I keep worrying about the low level stuff going on which today doesn't matter to the high level programmer.

I feel lost in the forest some times because I can't see the trees.

Glimmie, the link on your splash page image is undefined. Maybe those trees ...

Glimmie, so just what is it you disagree with? If you can code in a computer language then I think you are agreeing with the statement you quoted.

I am using Chrome, Outlook 2007, and IE 8 with no issues or interference. I only use chrome for iRule.

I guess what I a saying is someone can be too close to the hardware and have problem grasping much higher level concepts such as "click and drop" programming.

For example one of my DOS based screens has slide bars, I think Windows calls them meters. I touch and drag them to set levels on my video processors - in realtime, within a frame of video all via RS232@ 38K baud. One of the processors provides feedback so the level on the screen is read out of the box in real time while adjusting. This is quite easy to do (for me)even in DOS over serial port and a carefully planned and written hardware interrupt handler.

Now how am I going to do that on the Ipad? I realize two way communication I comming for Irule but still, this seems daunting without access to low level program control.

But hey, I'm learning something new.

I'm still sad that the developers aren't interested in a desktop version of iRule, as mentioned above (and as I too mentioned before). I have an iTach now, but I'm getting a little scared to get involved with iRule. I mean no disrespect, you got a lot of things going for you. But... I do see this whole 'IR control- over wifi- through a ridiculous little box called an iTach' as very, very temporary. I mean, at a certain point a do expect all my equipment to be controllable over wifi directly, and the iTach will go out faster than it came in. What if iRule isn't there anymore in a few years (not that I wish that!), the fact that it is an online service would leave me with nothing. Meanwhile something like iRed gives me control of my equipment through an iTach- from my mac but also from my iPhone, AND will continue to work even if the site goes down some day.
Furthermore, it would be great to incorporate iRule into my home automation. Actually, it makes so much sense I think it's a major letdown I can't do this. I just want my HA software to be able to talk to iRule on the mac, like eg Indigo can to iRed. (I use Shion, actually, and in my dreams I would use it in combination with iRule). I think this way it is too limited to justify the expense, which is sad 'cause I feel this is such a great team (which is rare!).

I agree that without low level control two way communications becomes very difficult, and manipulation of the user interface as a result of returned data becomes daunting to say the least. My major experience in this world was/is with the Philips Pronto PRO's which had full low level control through an extended version of Javascript and native wi-fi built in. They implemented sockets, but initially only for TCP but eventually corrected that oversight and handled UDP sockets as well.

There have been many variants on making low level control user (non programmer) friendly and none of them have been very successful. Philips in the Pronto line took the approach that they have a small hand held computer running Linux with a builtin javascript interpreter extended for graphics in a fully object oriented way. They then wrote a support system to make the graphics part easier to set up but let the advanced user directly deal with the Javascript system if they wanted to.

The same thing can be done with the apple family but I doubt if Apple would be very helpful. They want it their way. It will be interesting to see how the field develops.

That's not what I was arguing for, but I am happy to be educated. Here is what I am saying, If an iPhone can operate my iTach, and an iPod, and an iPad, then why not my desktop computer. Do those devices have something that a desktop does not have (other than the iOS)? Why can't my desktop act just like another iPhone without any centralized software, which to my argument is a separate issue?

Look at it this way, your exposure is only $50. There will no doubt be other "me too" I-Rule apps and Ipad can do countless other uses beyond a remot control. While built in WiFi control may be the future, are you or anyone going to scrap all your gear just to get it? And by the time that happens, years, the $400 or less investment in the Itach will have paid for it's self.

Has that been established? If that's true, they will open the door to competitors who are more ambitious.


I thought X10 would be gone soon, in the early 80s.


That is a concern for me as well.

Richard, Your desktop, be it Windows, Snow Leopard, or Ubuntu to name the three most popular versions, can be anything you want it to be. You just have to write the code. Each of them is very different in their OS structures (Snow Leopard is a cousin of Ubuntu) where Windows is nobody's relative. IOS is also quite different from the other three, as is Android. If Apple where to run IOS on a MAC as a virtual macine perhaps, then what you want to do would be a fait acompli, but I doubt if Apple will do that.

Many probably are using Chrome. They won't know they have a problem unless they decide to uninstall Chrome for whatever reason. As far as I know Chrome will not be a problem even after it is reinstalled. I would never have associated that I was unable to use Outlook email URLs as a result of using Chrome. I recently installed Outllook 10 so the Chrome and Outlook may not still be a problem. Will iRule not work with Safari, Internet Explorer, Firefox, etc.?

No thanks. I'll wait for someone else and pay them for their time. I have other things to do. But you certainly are quite the coding evangelist. With your prowess, I almost wonder why you didn't just write your own iRule.

Well ... $50 plus however many hours you invest into the iRule platform.

I really like the logic and flow of iRule. It speaks well of the person/people behind it. I hope it does well, and in fact, while I am writing this, I went to the app store and left my first review ever, for iRule.

Well I just installed Chrome on another computer and it works fine. So I'm off to the races!

The one minor point we are in disagreement on: I think the cost of appropriate hardware is closer to $100 than $500, although a device supplied WITH the necessary software will be greater, especially if sold in small quantity.

But I see no reason why the hardware for a suitable headless (no display, no keyboard) low-powered Linux-based controller for this should be over $100 and still have plenty of power left-over.

Seems to be the universal retort here whenever somebody runs out of rational argument...

The funny thing is, you provide the reason for not writing your own iRule immediately proceeding: it's a lot of work.

We all appreciate all the work that has gone into iRule. That we might disagree with the approach the company has taken with the product does not mean that we wish to or that it would be simple to produce our own.

Those of us who are in a position to write their own "iRule" (and I am one of those) just MIGHT have other fish in the frying pan that have nothing to do with this, but are willing to lend a bit of our expertise in providing some ideas for a better direction.

Oh. Yes, you certainly are right. Certainly, your desktop could act similarly to iRule - as just another decentralized server-less controller.

There are other issues - such as the difficulties of dealing with multiple controllers, though, that lead some of us to leap-frog into a centralized server solution whenever we hear rumblings about desk-tops. Mea culpa!

It's not so easy, unfortunately, to "port" software written for one platform to another. Depends in part on what language the application is written in and how portable that language and any libraries used are.

In this particular case, it'd be a pretty fair bet that iRule is written in Objective-C using Cocoa Touch (libraries). (Since this is how MOST iPhone apps are written, and certainly most of the ones that are reasonably responsive.)

That would make a port to Windows or Linux fairly difficult. A port to OSX would be more practical, but certainly not a walk in the park. Cocoa on the Mac is substantially similar to Cocoa Touch on iOS. But different enough that it's certainly significantly more work than just recompiling. It would require extensive rework, though it would probably be possible (barely) to maintain a common codebase through the use of conditional compilation. At least there would be the opportunity for some significant code-sharing.

The company would have to weigh probably doubling their technical staff against the dubious benefit of some additional unit sales on OSX, or even greater cost to support Windows.

More practical would be a centralized server on inexpensive dedicated hardware. This would likely be based on a web server with "web services" provided for use by clients on iPhone and other mobile platforms. The regular web pages could be used for ANY browser on ANY platform.

So, instead of having to write, say, an iPhone client, a Windows client, an OSX client, a Linux client, etc. you only need to write the server for the dedicated platform and write the iPhone client. (And any additional mobile clients.) You eliminate the need to write clients for ANY desktop OSs, because a browser running on any modern desktop platform is going to provide sufficient flexibility and power to do the job.

(Frankly, a server-only solution is likely sufficiently powerful for use as an iPhone client, given the power of Safari on the iPhone with it's native GUI extensions. But, alas, iPhone users want APPS, not websites that they need only point Safari to.)

Amen brother!

I'm in the same place as you. For a long time, the home automation "game" has been a bunch of closed systems that have an artificial complexity barrier to discourage the customer and support the integrator. The vendors of hardware or software support the integrator, not the customer.

Now with some open hardware (global cache and others), and some open software platforms (android and iphone) this will enable anyone to be able to do it.

I've just brought my irule license

Also, Globalcache have published docs about how to squirt commands into an iTach etc - it looks easy enough that I could probably code it in a few days (and my coding is crap) in perl.

Hi everyone.

I have a question for you.

Is there any RF emitter gateway that I can use with iRule? I have RGB led light strips that needs to be controlled, and it uses a RF remote.

If there's a gateway, how can I read the remote emitted frequencies? Is there something like an RF learner?

Cheers!

Cassio Simões

Nosforos,
It is $50. There are power strips that people on this site buy that are more than that.

I used to build desktop software. I pray Itai doesn't go there (and strongly doubt he will). The minute you go desktop you lose a huge portion of your development team to tasks that are directly related to desktop packaging, including platform compatibility, support for old versions, and fixing software bugs post-upgrade/install). You ever want to see two-way?

Most hosted software these days that support a community have a monthly charge. I am delighted to get the software for a fixed price.

As for the iTach, you should consider this a peripheral for old hardware, not a iRule device. Hardware will go IP (as will many appliances and devices). The iTach is a temporary solution to the profusion of devices that have outmoded control technology.

I would love to see one of the manufacturers (Denon? Onkyo?) support iRule and subsidize to drive their own sales. A little money to clean up device codes and improve the overall UI interaction and design would be delightful. Though, of course, after 2-way!