SAT<IP support for PVR

  Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Post Reply
CommanderROR Offline
Junior Member
Posts: 48
Joined: Sep 2012
Reputation: 0
Post: #31
I think I know what he is "ranting" about:


SAT>IP is a standard. You just buy a "Server" device, and get all the satellite TV converted to IP signals. All you really need on the other end is a client. TVHeadend is mostly a server, and it's pretty complicated. I used it for a while with Sat Tv.
So, you need the Sat IP server, the TVheadend server and then the XBMC plugin. Of course you can run TvH server and client on one machine, but it's not really practical.
What we need is a plugin, or even better native support for the protocol in XBMC so that we can search for channels and everything right inside XBMC without workarounds or intermediate devices/software.

Sadly, nobody has made that attempt yet.
find quote
negge Offline
Team-Kodi Member
Posts: 2,500
Joined: Dec 2010
Reputation: 25
Location: Finland
Post: #32
Nobody has done that because it's a complete waste of effort. As I've explained earlier your software needs to handle everything a standard DVB software would except for the hardware part.
find quote
CommanderROR Offline
Junior Member
Posts: 48
Joined: Sep 2012
Reputation: 0
Post: #33
Sorry, but I have to disagree.
It's not a waste of time at all, it's probably the only way to get "real" LiveTV supporz into XBMC. Of course your software has to handle a lot of stuff, like you said, everything besides hardware, but it's the same for VDR, TVHeadend and all the others. They even have to deal with all the hassle of hardware support, to a certain degree at least.
The main difference is, that you need only one component for Sat>IP, everything is done on the client side. So instead of working on, for example, a TVHeadend server and a client plugin, you do kust the client software and include all the actual work there, recording and everything. This means you need slightly more processung power on the client, but that's it. I really can't see any other disadvantages.

What it really takes is a serious recinsidering of XBMC itself. It's still mostly a media player, and not a full-blown home theatre device, and LiveTV is still "hacked" into it and mostly reliant on the backend. I don't know whether there are any plans to change that. If there are, then SAT>IP is the way to go.
find quote
Namerp Offline
Junior Member
Posts: 37
Joined: Jan 2012
Reputation: 0
Location: Saxony
Post: #34
The whole pvr part of xbmc seems to be a hacked together piece of software, without easy usage in mind (it is getting better but slow, very slow).

Sat>IP is great, but at the moment only real usable through VDR.
The the XBMC PVR part is near not usable for the average users (at least the setup), also a lot things won´t work like aspected. Sometime I question my self, if the developers have ever used a normal receiver/TV.

The importance of pvr for the xbmc project, i believe, cloud be measured with this comment (skins in the repo don´t need to have the pvr part):
Martijn: PVR is not a requirement for repo. A lot of people don't use it.
(This post was last modified: 2014-08-03 22:03 by Namerp.)
find quote
negge Offline
Team-Kodi Member
Posts: 2,500
Joined: Dec 2010
Reputation: 25
Location: Finland
Post: #35
CommanderROD Wrote:It's not a waste of time at all, it's probably the only way to get "real" LiveTV supporz into XBMC. Of course your software has to handle a lot of stuff, like you said, everything besides hardware, but it's the same for VDR, TVHeadend and all the others

This is exactly what I was talking about, namely all the features of VDR/tvheadend/anything would have to be reimplemented if XBMC somehow shipped with built-in live TV support using SAT>IP. SAT>IP is a low-level protocol and only abstracts the hardware interface, nothing else.

CommanderROR Wrote:The main difference is, that you need only one component for Sat>IP, everything is done on the client side. So instead of working on, for example, a TVHeadend server and a client plugin, you do kust the client software and include all the actual work there, recording and everything. This means you need slightly more processung power on the client, but that's it. I really can't see any other disadvantages.

Separating the backend from the frontend means you can have multiple clients all sharing one PVR backend, which means you'll only have to configure it once. Both you and Namerp seems to have been ignoring this very important part of how XBMC is designed to work completely.

Quote:What it really takes is a serious recinsidering of XBMC itself. It's still mostly a media player, and not a full-blown home theatre device, and LiveTV is still "hacked" into it and mostly reliant on the backend. I don't know whether there are any plans to change that. If there are, then SAT>IP is the way to go.

I wouldn't say it's "hacked in", live TV is complicated since there are many different systems out there and supporting all of those within XBMC would be a tough job that no one has time for, plus there's the duplication of functionality I talked about earlier.

@Namerp: of course we have all used a standard TV. The idea is of course to make XBMC easier to use, it just takes time and there's no general consensus on how things should be so there will always be someone who's disappointed.
find quote
tco. Offline
Junior Member
Posts: 2
Joined: Nov 2013
Reputation: 0
Post: #36
From my point of view Live TV is the weak point @ xbmc. As end user it is extremely difficult to find the right pvr for my needs as well as to manage the set up of the pvr and server. The advantage of xbmc is that it is cool ?;-) and nearly usable on any platform. So if there would be an add on who picks up the broadcasted sat>ip stream I could easily watch TV on all devices.
IPTV Simple is a good approach. But it would be much easier to select only the sat>ip transmitter and use the device itself. I guess IPTV & SAT>IP is the future rater than a TV card within a Desktop PC.

Looking forward to a sat>ip pvr :-)
find quote
Post Reply