Will there be a multicas for E2, or only cccam? Because with cccam some channels don't work with the different versions, but with multicas everything opens correct.
Printable View
Will there be a multicas for E2, or only cccam? Because with cccam some channels don't work with the different versions, but with multicas everything opens correct.
no... wait... are you serious? you can have oscam, cccam, sbox, mgcamd, and really want multicas?Quote:
Originally Posted by kooleracer
I dont want i'm only asking if there will be a mutlicas for E2. Because i dont like swichting between the softcams every week. Because now sometimes 2.1.3 works better with sky but 2.1.4 works beter with other packes. And there is no devolpment for cccam. Multicas updates its softcam now and then, so you garantueed that new problems will be solved quickly.Quote:
Originally Posted by DragontearS
He means the "azbox version" of cccam...Quote:
Originally Posted by DragontearS
not the native one....:)
@kooleracer
believe me
When cccam runs native on az just like on dream, you ll never look for multicas;)
Is it possible to get a kernel which read a yamon value like boot_device?
In this case it would be possible to set this to /dev/hdb1 (boot from internal hdd) or /dev/sda1 for USB-Stick. At the moment it remounts /dev/hda1 as root after ramdisk is up.
I have heavy problems to boot the image direct from nfs or HDD without the ramfs. Some parts are not installing right like /dev and it is not possible to load the dvb module.
@4@@@@
I can add in my init script in ramdisk rootfs to check after mounting for example USB to see if /sbin/init exist and then to switch exec root from there and ofcourse to try /dev/hdb1 too.
I dont know why you having troubles booting ...
If drivers are selfmade from scratch it will fail as it's done on SH4 platform.Quote:
Originally Posted by cimkaya
Bad picture quality, tuner lookups etc etc...
That's what i have said all the time, you are all dreamers.
Writing drivers from scratch will never be good as they can never perform as official drivers.
I hope you make it but i seem the same history repeats itself.
MIPS or not, who gives the **** when you don't have the official drivers.
@The_Ripper: As a first try to use /dev/hdb1 would be great. I'm also in the 'dark' why it would not work right. I know that in the ufs910 world they need devinit as a kernel parameter (Helper app to populate the initial /dev directory with the required devices when they don't exist yet Call this instead of init to set up everything for the real init (using the init-commandline option of the linux kernel ) - I suppose the problem is there - devinit starts at the end init .If we boot tdt-openwrt we need /etc/preinit which do the same but more detailed.
I also miss /proc/progress which is very strange too.
looks great, where can we download the pannel?Quote:
Originally Posted by NodiSa
@Likvid
They never be the same as for DMM because as you said it's different chip and regarding SH4 different CPU architecture then BCM/Sigma.
DMM coders coded E2 app and BCM DVB driver so they adjust both aspect for BCM chip.
As I know BCM nor Sigma doesnt have official DVB API support(driver) in their support/SDK for chip, so it's up to company who is using this chips to code driver for what they want, in this case it's DVB API support.Quote:
Writing drivers from scratch will never be good as they can never perform as official drivers.
So regarding compare, you guys can just compare CPU speed because it's same architecture MIPS, others things you cant ...
If you need volunteers to do any tests with me AZBox Premium Plus you have at your disposal, I've been playing with the Pre-Pre Beta version :-) install the CCcam creating a folder etc, keys and script and it worked quite well serving my other satellite decoders, I got the CCcam was activated by a script, but telnet (1A) was also lists Channels installing my DM800 in the DreamBoxEdit AZBox, works perfect but of course could not see anything.
Greetings and thanks for the job
what is the correlation with this topic and E2 for AZBox?Quote:
Originally Posted by Likvid
drivers ar re-writed and adapted to E2, this driver is official driver man ;) ,
written on the basis official sours of drivers and with all support and do***entation from official side
don't worry, This was not improvisation, this is an official driver.
I understand concerns of some people , because first impressions of this enigma are:
1.stability
2.speed
3.good support (rapid response)
4.multimedia that supports HW
maybe this is concern for people who don't like good for AZBox,
but pls, let us to do our job ,
This is the theme for the E2 and AZBox
all your frustrations show in other theme.
rgs,
Well said @telesat!
Thank you :)
Opensat has official developers team for azbox, they work on it since 2 years right now.. but the_ripper and co. made a work better than their with no official support in 6 months. They have not released an official fw since January.. So the official drivers really have been useless... if you don't like the_ripper and co. work just use your dreambox and long life and prosperity. Here no one is talking about doing or not doing a home made driver, that question has gone many months ago. The decision is taken.. they grew up a system from nothing with the support of other guys on the net that believed in this project.Quote:
Originally Posted by Likvid
I want you to remember that Linux, youtube, facebook and more were homemade projects...........
So if you really know nothing about persons you are talking about, how can you imagine to judge if they are able or not to do a good work?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DragontearS
Not through m8
OpenSAT just hired coders in march/april 2010, all the fw released so far came from CELRUN Korea.
OpenSAT hired own coders because they where frusteded with how things where going.
So do you think firmwares released before march 2010 work good? The point is that is not the origin of driver that make a system working correctly, but HOW is made. (Sorry for wrong infos carp95, i didn't really know about korean developers, but i think is not so different don't you think?)Quote:
Originally Posted by Carp95
DragontearS in this case, i think driver were the problem. At least that's what sigma said, they were trying to improve driver. Also Opensat worry was drivers sucked..
Yeah. You're right hfmls. Opensat worry that too.Quote:
Originally Posted by hfmls
I've never used a dreambox, but seeing how bad cccam works in the azbox is hard to believe it would work better on enigma. I even tried to run cccam in the computer to see if there was an improvement but it worked the same way than in the azbox.Quote:
Originally Posted by leerock
For me cccam is very bad and it's hard to imagine it could work better than oscam.
Reading some posts, it looks like some people are waiting for enigma just for running cccam :o
hperez cccam is the best emu out there. if u set it up correctly it does amazing things with the most stability there is.
in azbox hd original firmware most of the times it wouldn't open channels because The_Ripper didn't finalize dvbapi_module, that's why. (he said it) He did that in a few days just so we could test it. It's nothing to use in a everyday basis.
Believe me and all users will confirm, multicas is just a boy near cccam. ALSO multicas is nothing more than a card reader (without sharing) and/or cccam and newcamd client.
Test cccam in a dreambox or in future enigma2 azbox and you'll see how stable it is.