[VU+ Ultimo] CI conax module + valid card not working

[Larry-G]

@ ALL read post 9 again, I understood what rob was saying perfectly.

http://www.world-of-satellite.com/s...rd-not-working&p=279258&viewfull=1#post279258

 

[Rob van der Does]

Sorry mate but its not that clear.
If he states it works with Black hole and the original Vu+ image and the old version of Vix then it cant be the drivers has to be something to do with the Zeus image

So what you say is that if drivers work fine in Windows Vista they're also fine for Windows7

 

[Creators]

... When I try to show the details of the CI module from the CAM menu, it just keep showing "waiting for CI".




The receiver does not recognize the module, try to Smit Conax CAM.

 

[Rob van der Does]

... When I try to show the details of the CI module from the CAM menu, it just keep showing "waiting for CI".
The receiver does not recognize the module, try to Smit Conax CAM.

Not the receiver, but the drivers.

 

[Creators]

Not the receiver, but the drivers.

Sorry, I quoted "kvarnstj",and so drivers do not recognize some manufacturers CAM's.

 

[kvarnstj]

drivers do not recognize some manufacturers CAM's

As I have stated before, same CAM module works in other images, so it's not that the driver couldn't handle it.
In CAM menu, it states "Conax 4.00" in Port1, however "waiting for CI" keep showing up. I have now swapped to BH image (where it works fine), and will stick with that unless CAM starts to work some day in VIX again.
If someone else have experiences with CAM modules, and how they work with e.g. Zeus, would be nice to hear.

 

[Rob van der Does]

As I have stated before, same CAM module works in other images, so it's not that the driver couldn't handle it.

As I stated before:

So what you say is that if drivers work fine in Windows Vista they're also fine for Windows7

I'm not sure which part of that isn't clear

 

[kvarnstj]

I guess what you are saying is that you can compare VIX with Win7, whereas the CAM drivers are made for Win Vista, and are not compatible anymore. However, you are then also saying, that all other images are still based on "Win Vista" (as the CAM works in e.g. BH), and VIX is the only one who have "moved on" ?
For the end-user to have a working CAM module solution, he needs to choose a image which is based on "Win Vista". What I am saying is that, it is a shame that you have moved on to, since the functionality I need is no longer working. Also I don't see any other benefit for moving on, since there is no new functionality along with the "Win7" uplift? As you have stated on Zeus home, end-user shall see no difference in Zeus compared to Vix 3.
In a nutshell.

 

[Rob van der Does]

BH and VTi are simply OI-images with a number of additional plugins embedded. OI is based on an approx 5 years old clone of DM's E2.

ViX (and a number of other PLi-based images) are not: they have evolved a long way from that, and are absolutely not comparable with the original E2 (based) images. Indeed: more or less the same as the differences between Windows XP and 8.
As long as VU creates drivers for a specific, and not for a general environment, issues like your actual one are bound to occur.

Long story short: all support for any CAM is in the driver, not in the image. Nothing we can do about that.
If you're not interested in the developments we've made since the 5 years old DM-cloned OI, you can use BH or VTi (or even OI).

 

[kvarnstj]

This is clear, thanks for comments.

 

[IAmATeaf]

Now that explanation I too understand and I've learnt something as I hadn't appreciated that the core of BH was so different.

 

[rte]

I wonder if I've got i right now.
So the firmware manufacturer VU+ will not create a CAM-driver for ViX/PLi-environment but for all the other environments.
Is there a policy conflict between VU+ and Vix-team?
It reminds me of the earlier problems with USB-WiFi-dongles.

 

[IAmATeaf]

No, it is that BH and VTi are still pretty close to the original Vu images in terms of library files whereas OpenPLi and ViX have moved and updated core parts so that the drivers and these updated core parts now cause these types of issues.

So until Vu refresh their drivers to take into account updated libraries there's nothing that ViX can do unless they take really drastic actions with their images.

 

[Larry-G]

I wonder if I've got i right now.
So the firmware manufacturer VU+ will not create a CAM-driver for ViX/PLi-environment but for all the other environments.
Is there a policy conflict between VU+ and Vix-team?
It reminds me of the earlier problems with USB-WiFi-dongles.

No, he said that the Build environment or Image base used by Vu+ for their OI ( official original image ) is basically 5 years out of date and this is what they build their drivers for, ViX and the OE-Alliance, even Pli to a certain degree are far more upto date than the OI ( BH and VTI are built from this very old code too ).

so Vu+ need to get with the times and update or you will start to see even more compatibility issues between the old images OI, BH, VTI and those who are constantly updating and innovating. Pli, ViX and the OE-Alliance.

 

[Larry-G]

No, it is that BH and VTi are still pretty close to the original Vu images in terms of library files whereas OpenPLi and ViX have moved and updated core parts so that the drivers and these updated core parts now cause these types of issues.

So until Vu refresh their drivers to take into account updated libraries there's nothing that ViX can do unless they take really drastic actions with their images.

Even Pli are old when considered against the new OE used by the OE-Alliance and ViX.

 

[Rob van der Does]

There's no 'policy conflict'; it's about the way drivers are being compiled.
If drivers are dependant on fixed libraries, and we use younger versions of such a library, this kind of issue can happen.
Normally a driver would be compiled for a more generic environment, or for libraries equal to or greater then a specific version. And as I said: drivers are closed source, and from the outside we can't see what's in it or what they depend on.

 

[rte]

The fact remains. VU+ is not willing to refresh more compatible drivers for CAMs. This is a policy issue and must be made generally known. The consequences will be visible on the market. Who wants to buy a retarded receiver?

 

[Larry-G]

The fact remains. VU+ is not willing to refresh more compatible drivers for CAMs. This is a policy issue and must be made generally known. The consequences will be visible on the market. Who wants to buy a retarded receiver?

The last time we made a statement about the driver support from Vu+ and withheld the ViX Vu+ solo2 image in protest, we received nothing but abuse and wild accusations from all parties, so we will not take any stance on such actions, thats for Vu+ to sort out them selves.

 

[Rob van der Does]

I think I mentioned it before: hardly anybody uses a CAM in an E2-receiver. And for a good reason: softcams allow much more freedom (i.e. multiple decryption, decrypted recordings).
So I can't believe anybody will be impressed by your announcement. And besides, as you experienced yourself: there's an easy solution by using professional instead of hobby firmware.

 

[Larry-G]

I think I mentioned it before: hardly anybody uses a CAM in an E2-receiver. And for a good reason: softcams allow much more freedom (i.e. multiple decryption, decrypted recordings).
So I can't believe anybody will be impressed by your announcement. And besides, as you experienced yourself: there's an easy solution by using professional instead of hobby firmware.

I my self have some 50 plus cam modules but none has been used in a receiver in years, IF sky uk obeyed the law and produced a cam module a lot more people would gladly use them, my self included.