+- Kodi Community Forum (https://forum.kodi.tv)
+-- Forum: Support (https://forum.kodi.tv/forumdisplay.php?fid=33)
+--- Forum: PVR & Live TV Support (https://forum.kodi.tv/forumdisplay.php?fid=167)
+---- Forum: Windows Media Center (WMC) (https://forum.kodi.tv/forumdisplay.php?fid=205)
+---- Thread: Why not WMC as backend? (/showthread.php?tid=139748)
RE: Why not WMC as backend? - Dennis5056 - 2013-05-07
Thanks for the update, checking this thread everyday now
Live TV in WMC is very stable, been using it for all my Live Tv and recordings for 5+ years and never had a problem.
But switching with my remote between XBMC and MCE is not ideal, and existing PVR solutions in XBMC are not really a
option... it responds very slow and is not as stable as MCE.
Keep up the good work, and be sure to include a Donate button.
RE: Why not WMC as backend? - JeffreyF - 2013-05-07
Ha, please just call me Jeff. JeffreyF is hard for even me to read...
RE: Why not WMC as backend? - Evoxer - 2013-05-07
Cant agree with the other guys more - been using MCE for years for livetv and recordings and switching between that and xbmc is upsetting - especially when xbmc is so more polished in every other area!
Looking forward to following the progress on this one!
RE: Why not WMC as backend? - LSU Jonno - 2013-05-08
(2013-05-06, 16:45)krustyreturns Wrote: The other developer (not sure if I can use his name) is chasing down why actively recording wtv files don't play correctly when streamed to xbmc directly.
I'm not a coder, and you guys may already be well past this problem...But the WTV problem with FFMPEG is a known issue. According to the FFMPEG guys, they have fixed the issue in the current rev of FFMPEG. XBMC v12 is using a version of FFMPEG that is over a year old which is just a natural effect of dev cycles. All of that to say, have you guys tried playing WTV files using the latest and greatest FFMPEG version to see if the problem is already fixed?
RE: Why not WMC as backend? - bry - 2013-05-08
(2013-05-08, 16:08)LSU Jonno Wrote:(2013-05-06, 16:45)krustyreturns Wrote: The other developer (not sure if I can use his name) is chasing down why actively recording wtv files don't play correctly when streamed to xbmc directly.
I'm not a coder, and you guys may already be well past this problem...But the WTV problem with FFMPEG is a known issue. According to the FFMPEG guys, they have fixed the issue in the current rev of FFMPEG. XBMC v12 is using a version of FFMPEG that is over a year old which is just a natural effect of dev cycles. All of that to say, have you guys tried playing WTV files using the latest and greatest FFMPEG version to see if the problem is already fixed?
See this thread and maybe the patches can help in development - http://forum.xbmc.org/showthread.php?tid=156303
RE: Why not WMC as backend? - JeffreyF - 2013-05-08
(2013-05-08, 16:08)LSU Jonno Wrote:(2013-05-06, 16:45)krustyreturns Wrote: The other developer (not sure if I can use his name) is chasing down why actively recording wtv files don't play correctly when streamed to xbmc directly.
I'm not a coder, and you guys may already be well past this problem...But the WTV problem with FFMPEG is a known issue. According to the FFMPEG guys, they have fixed the issue in the current rev of FFMPEG. XBMC v12 is using a version of FFMPEG that is over a year old which is just a natural effect of dev cycles. All of that to say, have you guys tried playing WTV files using the latest and greatest FFMPEG version to see if the problem is already fixed?
Can you link me to where the ffmpeg guys say it's fixed? I don't see many code changes.
I tried to play a live recording with ffmpeg 1.2 ffplay and the issue is still there.
RE: Why not WMC as backend? - krustyreturns - 2013-05-08
The issue Jeff is working on is specific to trying to play wtv files WHILE they are actively being recorded by the window's sbe. I don't think this problem was been addressed by the ffmpeg group (but I would be very happy to be proven wrong, if someone can post a link).
There were other problems with playing wtv files that were fixed by a newer version ffmpeg, so I think that is where the confusion is.
RE: Why not WMC as backend? - scott967 - 2013-05-08
I play wtv files on XBMC 12.0, the only thing I note is that if WMC is actively recording to the file, the playback ends at the point in the file that was EOF when playback began (i.e., nothing recorded after starting playback is played). Restarting playback allows play of the added file content. Not sure if this is what is meant by ffmpeg problem with wtv.
scott s.
.
RE: Why not WMC as backend? - JeffreyF - 2013-05-08
That's what he means and it's what I'm working on right now. I've found where the problem is, just working on a fix that won't change existing behavior and doesn't waste cycles basically.
RE: Why not WMC as backend? - LSU Jonno - 2013-05-09
(2013-05-08, 20:57)krustyreturns Wrote: The issue Jeff is working on is specific to trying to play wtv files WHILE they are actively being recorded by the window's sbe. I don't think this problem was been addressed by the ffmpeg group (but I would be very happy to be proven wrong, if someone can post a link).
There were other problems with playing wtv files that were fixed by a newer version ffmpeg, so I think that is where the confusion is.
Ah ok. Yeah, different issue. My bad. Sorry for the confusion.
RE: Why not WMC as backend? - JeffreyF - 2013-05-10
By the way Jonno, I graduated from LSU. Geaux Tigers!
RE: Why not WMC as backend? - runee - 2013-05-12
Hi Krusty and now Jeff!
I am utterly in love with this thread and the whole prospect of the addon
I have been using wmc since early harmony, and always been wanting to move away from it's inflexibility. However, I have always been held back by the fact that it is the only useable livetv and pvr solution that exists. We are heavy livetv users, heavy timeshift users and heavy pvr users in this home, so I am stuck with mce.
With Frodo I had my hopes up - but it is still not anywhere near wmce in the tv department.
I have read every word in this thread, and if you can make this work, you can have my first-born!
Anyways, just showing my support and crossing my fingers for a beta in the future!
Oh, and if you need more testers, my media center is ready
/Rune
RE: Why not WMC as backend? - krustyreturns - 2013-05-13
(2013-05-12, 20:03)runee Wrote: Hi Krusty and now Jeff!
I am utterly in love with this thread and the whole prospect of the addon
I have been using wmc since early harmony, and always been wanting to move away from it's inflexibility. However, I have always been held back by the fact that it is the only useable livetv and pvr solution that exists. We are heavy livetv users, heavy timeshift users and heavy pvr users in this home, so I am stuck with mce.
With Frodo I had my hopes up - but it is still not anywhere near wmce in the tv department.
I have read every word in this thread, and if you can make this work, you can have my first-born!
Anyways, just showing my support and crossing my fingers for a beta in the future!
Oh, and if you need more testers, my media center is ready
/Rune
Thanks Rune, I have all the kids I need though. I hope to have some news soon, stay tuned.
RE: Why not WMC as backend? - runee - 2013-05-13
Phew - good news.... I don't have a firstborn yet ;-)
BTW - I am not sure where you are, or which way you chose to proceed in regards to LiveTv. But you were discussing two options earlier in the thread... One was to read the DirectX stream directly to the screen. That would allow for fast channels switching but restrict it to local playback (if you could figure it out) and the other was the more traditional/distributed server/client version, which, in the current way XBMC uses ffmpeg, requires the dreaded pre-buffering (slow channel switches).
I was thinking, that if you could manage to get the "local" Directx approach working, why not implement both with an option to configure the individual Client? So if it is local, you use Directx and get the benefits of fast channel changes and if it is remote, you get the benefits of a distributed setup?
Personally, I am running everything locally with hard wires to connect my kitchen and bedroom to the same video output. So I would greatly benefit from the local version. But in the future, I am planning to invest in some more tuners, and then the distributed setup would be interesting for me, I would love to keep a local fast channel switch in my living room, and the slow distributed way for my kitchen and bedroom.
Makes sense?
I know it's a bit more coding work - but just stating the case, that one does not neccesarily have to exclude the other - and both options have merit :-)
RE: Why not WMC as backend? - rap777 - 2013-05-13
Great News!
Thanks for your efforts! Looking forward to use it on a Network Environment!
Regards and God bless
Alfred