<div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 9:56 AM, <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:lists@whitehouse.org.nz">lists@whitehouse.org.nz</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
That seems really stupid to me. Quite aside from not being intuitive (can<br>
you imagine MySky having "hard" and "soft" padding?), I struggle to see the<br>
benefit. I don't actually want it to throw a conflict when I've run out of<br>
tuners and have scheduled "hard padding" (say adjacent recordings on three<br>
multiplexes), </blockquote><div><br>A lot of people do. Particularly in the US where most programs seem to be repeated a lot - most people apparently would rather have the scheduler record another showing than lose the padding (and therefore the start or end of the show, or at least have to deal with remembering that part of the show is attached to another program somewhere).<br>
<br>Originally hard padding was the only kind (and I expect it's the only kind available on MySky). When people complained that they were missing shows they were advised to manually adjust the padding for those particular recordings (this is what I still do in the very rare case of a conflict) or buy another tuner. The scheduler is complex and adding some sort of intelligent padding was seen as difficult, risky, unwarranted and likely to result in more user issues when it did something the user wasn't expecting. I'm not convinced that position was wrong. Soft padding was eventually added as a half-way measure that is useful to some people and not too invasive since it doesn't touch the scheduler.<br>
<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">I just want it to use different tuners when they are<br>
otherwise sitting idle so that I actually get my "soft padding" in the<br>
recording. </blockquote><div><br>The best solution for you is probably to use hard padding and manually resolve the conflicts by removing the padding. You've got 8 virtual tuners so I can't see you having many conflicts.<br>
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">Obviously the best solution would be if someone managed to make<br>
it so that overlap padding (from two adjacent recordings on the same<br>
channel on the same tuner) was recorded once but linked to both recordings<br>
(which would solve the disk-use issue mentioned), or encoded once and<br>
written to disk twice — it's even more important in analogue setups. If<br>
anybody is keen to work on it, I would be keen to start a donation drive<br>
and throw a little cash at the problem.<br></blockquote><div><br>It's been discussed before. The problem is not the splitting of the signal into two recordings, the problem is getting the scheduler to understand. One solution would be to implement it in the same way as multirec - multiple virtual tuners that can be used together in certain situations. I suppose it could also be implemented so that it only applies to soft padding and therefore doesn't mess with the scheduler. But I think you'll struggle to find a developer interested enough to tackle this.<br>
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
If the "soft padding" worked properly (ranking below an actual program but<br>
utilising an otherwise-idle card), I wouldn't have thought MythTV would<br>
need the default hard-padding rules (as the only time you would need them<br>
would be for specific shows that you knew would likely end late).</blockquote><div><br>It's not that simple. There are lots of corner cases where different people will want different behaviour (consider the case where someone's tuners aren't the same quality-wise). This has been discussed to death in the past - check out the main list archives.<br>
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> Setting<br>
padding in two places is pretty odd, especially when it isn't clear what<br>
difference it makes.<br></blockquote><div><br>The setup descriptions are pretty clear. It would be better if the options were all in one place but I'm not sure that's practical given that one option is global and the other is not.<br>
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
In addition, the sensible way to deal with it would seem to be through the<br>
priority system that is already in there. A checkbox similar to the "try to<br>
use a different tuner for adjacent recordings on different channels" saying<br>
"try to use a different tuner for adjacent recordings on the same channel"<br>
would be a much-preferred solution for people with multi-rec up and<br>
running. Strangely, it seems that the upshot of all of this is that I can<br>
get MythTV to do exactly what I want for adjacent recordings on different<br>
channels, but cannot for adjacent recordings on the same channel.<br></blockquote><div><br>It's worth suggesting. It's probably the most practical way of solving your particular need.<br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">