What we can await for XBMC Eden?

  Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Post Reply
butchabay Offline
Skilled Skinner
Posts: 3,843
Joined: Mar 2010
Reputation: 75
Location: Planet Crematoria
Post: #1
Hi guys, first wanna say that i'm really new in all the PVR stuff, i've made pvr support for the modded skin cirrus extended, using Win XP and Mediaportal TV Server, have to say that i'm really not happy with this solution, switch channels takes an eternity, sometimes losing connection to tv server, sometimes this and sometimes that. Using the Pvr Branch compiled January 2011, i really know all the pvr stuff is not stable yet, but what can we expect for the EDEN Release? A complete new concept? All integrated and fully support for Live TV?
find quote
opdenkamp Offline
Team-XBMC PVR Developer
Posts: 2,232
Joined: Feb 2009
Reputation: 29
Location: Heerlen, The Netherlands
Post: #2
this: http://trac.xbmc.org/milestone/11.0
and no, pvr is not on there yet. doesn't mean that it's not usable yet, but it's not ready to be included in mainline xbmc.

if you're using mediaportal and windows clients, you should be using margro's binaries, since he's the dev for that addon and knows when it's stable enough to use: http://www.scintilla.utwente.nl/~marcelg...build.html

opdenkamp / dushmaniac

xbmc-pvr [Eden-PVR builds] [now included in mainline XBMC, so no more source link here :)]
personal website: [link]

Found a problem with PVR? Report it on Trac, under "PVR - core components". Please attach the full debug log.

If you like my work, please consider donating to me and/or Team XBMC.
find quote
loggio Offline
Fan
Posts: 593
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 6
Post: #3
butchabay,

I am also wondering this. To be honest, after using Magro's build, i've come to blieve that MediaPortal's backend is not even very good... Infact, i'm quite disappointed with it's performance... Even media portal itself doesn't switch channels very fast when using it's own back-end & 4therecord has potential... but, let's face it, it's not fully featured enough at the moment to become an all in all solution to a back-end for windows.

After having said that, it doesn't leave us Windows users with a whole lot of options on the table as far as back-ends go. To me, it doesn't seem like the "XBMC WAY" (if there is such a thing)... doing it like this means PVR will only EVER BE AS GOOD AS the developers of the back-end make their product... and how good the developer of a plugin for XBMC actually is.

This whole "plugin" idea to me is a little complex and very confusing for the average XBMC user, and sort of goes against the "independant HTPC solution" that xbmc has become...

I honestly believe that XBMC's PVR functionality should be 100% completely apart of XBMC itself, and require NO 3RD party back-ends what so ever.

This way, all developers can work together into making ONE TOTALLY AWESOME PVR experience, instead of tackling countless issues with millions of back-ends.

I know this would require separate back-ends to be created for each OS. But at least a user can download XBMC for any OS and essentially, hit "install" and be able to do it all... Scanning/configuring channels from within XBMC across all OS platforms, requiring No 3rd party apps... and get all the support they need, right here in one place @ the XBMC forums.

Isn't this what XBMC's all about??

The thought of installing another programs back-end in order for XBMC's pvr to be utilized sort of disappoints/upsets me.

I may be alone in thinking thisConfused i don't know.
(This post was last modified: 2011-03-15 08:14 by loggio.)
find quote
loggio Offline
Fan
Posts: 593
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 6
Post: #4
I just don't see it getting very far the way it is...

But having said all that, i really should give enormous credit to the developers who have taken it to the level it's at because you guys really are doing great :-)

Don't think i don't appreciate what you're all doing.
I just think it should be done differently.
find quote
opdenkamp Offline
Team-XBMC PVR Developer
Posts: 2,232
Joined: Feb 2009
Reputation: 29
Location: Heerlen, The Netherlands
Post: #5
I just think you have no idea what you're talking about.

1) you're using development preview versions. things might be more complex than they should be or don't work properly, but that's what you get when you're using bleeding edge stuff.
2) if margro's build is unstable/slow at the moment, then it doesn't mean that it will be like that when it's done. it's a PREVIEW version.
3) that sentence about the pvr plugin being only as good as the addon makes no sense at all. you can say exactly the same about the code that would have to be written to have an "internal backend". which will be a LOT more complex than an addon that just interfaces with a backend. and you'd have to do that for all platforms. which would take years to become as functional as existing backends.
4) "all developers can work together...": how many active pvr devs can you find? right.

But if you feel like doing it all differently, feel free to create a fork and do it the way you think it should be done.

opdenkamp / dushmaniac

xbmc-pvr [Eden-PVR builds] [now included in mainline XBMC, so no more source link here :)]
personal website: [link]

Found a problem with PVR? Report it on Trac, under "PVR - core components". Please attach the full debug log.

If you like my work, please consider donating to me and/or Team XBMC.
find quote
retro11 Offline
Member
Posts: 96
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation: 0
Location: Suffolk, UK
Post: #6
My experience with PVR has always been good and the only gripe I have had is lack of skin support.

Channel changing on recent builds has fast for me (under a second using Mediaportal/TSreader) but it isn't without bugs and a few missing features but isn't that the way of every programme including XBMC?

I don't see it being far from perfect for what it's needed for the only outstanding issues for me are:

Full on Timeshifting
Series Link recording
Automatically add recordings to library

@butchabay - looking forward to your release
find quote
loggio Offline
Fan
Posts: 593
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 6
Post: #7
I do apologise if i came across rude or unappreciative... Don't take it to heart dushmaniac...

I'm not knocking the "stability" of your releases, or even your efforts in creating the addons that you guys have created and all the work you guys have put in to this. I do appreciate it, and i do use it on a daily basis.

I am excited for what the future holds, regardless of my thoughts regarding plugins.
I guess, sometimes we just have to vent... right? lol human nature.
Keep up the good work guys.
(This post was last modified: 2011-03-15 11:24 by loggio.)
find quote
opdenkamp Offline
Team-XBMC PVR Developer
Posts: 2,232
Joined: Feb 2009
Reputation: 29
Location: Heerlen, The Netherlands
Post: #8
no problem, I don't. just wanted to make some things clear Smile
and having an integrated pvr service that works on every platform is just not an option

opdenkamp / dushmaniac

xbmc-pvr [Eden-PVR builds] [now included in mainline XBMC, so no more source link here :)]
personal website: [link]

Found a problem with PVR? Report it on Trac, under "PVR - core components". Please attach the full debug log.

If you like my work, please consider donating to me and/or Team XBMC.
find quote
topfs2 Offline
Team-Kodi Developer
Posts: 4,183
Joined: Dec 2007
Reputation: 13
Post: #9
dushmaniac Wrote:no problem, I don't. just wanted to make some things clear Smile
and having an integrated pvr service that works on every platform is just not an option

The fact is someone can make a service which works on every platform if they wish, they can make it as an addon and if its good enough and with proper licenses then heck, we could distrubute it with XBMC by default and you'd have that.

Point is that creating a PVR backend is millions of hours of work, something we don't have the resources nor want to spend the resources we have on. Especially when there exist really good solutions for most platforms. We focus on making an interface which can easily integrate with any backend, be it designed for XBMC or not.

If you have problems please read this before posting

Always read the XBMC online-manual, FAQ and search the forum before posting.
Do not e-mail XBMC-Team members directly asking for support. Read/follow the forum rules.
For troubleshooting and bug reporting please make sure you read this first.

[Image: badge.gif]

"Well Im gonna download the code and look at it a bit but I'm certainly not a really good C/C++ programer but I'd help as much as I can, I mostly write in C#."
find quote
Robotica Offline
Posting Freak
Posts: 1,202
Joined: Aug 2010
Reputation: 5
Post: #10
Development as it is done now makes perfect sense. First the GUI (based on XBMC default GUI) with an universal interface (which is useful in many perspectives). After that, a project like mythtv could be forked (or the projects can merge) and integrated relatively (No, I don't have patches) easily into XBMC. This solutions beats millions hours of work for a new GPL backend. It's already there.....
find quote
opdenkamp Offline
Team-XBMC PVR Developer
Posts: 2,232
Joined: Feb 2009
Reputation: 29
Location: Heerlen, The Netherlands
Post: #11
there's more work involved than just linking against some lib and calling some methods. it is however perfectly possible to save time by integrating some backend that already supports multiple platforms, like myth.

but for the near future, you can forget about this, because of what topfs2 already explained.

opdenkamp / dushmaniac

xbmc-pvr [Eden-PVR builds] [now included in mainline XBMC, so no more source link here :)]
personal website: [link]

Found a problem with PVR? Report it on Trac, under "PVR - core components". Please attach the full debug log.

If you like my work, please consider donating to me and/or Team XBMC.
find quote
steffen_b Offline
Member
Posts: 52
Joined: Dec 2009
Reputation: 0
Post: #12
ACK - you can not beat applications with 5 years (tvheadend) or 10years+ (vdr) within a blink of an eye, beside the requirements for the different uses are quite different, which you can serve better with different backends.
find quote
Freakish Offline
Member
Posts: 75
Joined: Dec 2009
Reputation: 0
Post: #13
dushmaniac Wrote:2) if margro's build is unstable/slow at the moment, then it doesn't mean that it will be like that when it's done. it's a PREVIEW version.

I'd like to say that a while back when the plugin was python based, my channel changes were slow, but the latest patched build from Margro is working really fast and well, 1000% better than previous on my Win7 x64.

I'm switching from MC7 to XBMC/TV Server already as it's really only the lack of skins and a handful of minor bugs at this stage that make not 100%.

Anyway keep up the good work!
find quote
Marx1 Offline
Fan
Posts: 320
Joined: Jan 2011
Reputation: 3
Post: #14
I think that existing architecture of PVR is really good. There are many backends and all of them have their strengths and weaknesses. Having them connected through plugins gives freedom of choice and possibility to have backend on different server.
What I miss i better stability. I usually program recordings via WWW interface, so I need only stable player of realtime TV, and player of recordings. So I think stability should be priority.
find quote
opdenkamp Offline
Team-XBMC PVR Developer
Posts: 2,232
Joined: Feb 2009
Reputation: 29
Location: Heerlen, The Netherlands
Post: #15
that currently does have priority (together with cleaning up the code and, after that's done, cleaning up interfaces to reduce dependencies).

opdenkamp / dushmaniac

xbmc-pvr [Eden-PVR builds] [now included in mainline XBMC, so no more source link here :)]
personal website: [link]

Found a problem with PVR? Report it on Trac, under "PVR - core components". Please attach the full debug log.

If you like my work, please consider donating to me and/or Team XBMC.
find quote