Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 8 years ago
Too many limitations on the 9x. Especially the LCD size is not fine for that,
or the screen will be horrible
Original comment by bson...@gmail.com
on 22 Feb 2013 at 12:54
Oh well, it was just a cool idea that unfortunately doesn't go anywhere.. After
all there are limitations.. :D :)
Original comment by joaoalve...@googlemail.com
on 22 Feb 2013 at 1:55
On the sky9x the PlayBoth is also impossible, we would have to choose between 2
files, 6chars needed for each. We need a bigger screen for that.
Original comment by bson...@gmail.com
on 22 Feb 2013 at 1:56
Yeah, here is just numbers.. it makes it smaller. we would just need to squeeze
2 characters in..
ID0 Play BOTH 308/420
I think I've seen somewhere in the forum a screen where there was a speaker
symbol.
Mybe with the little symbol we could have:
ID0 (Speaker Symbol) Both 308/420
The same for track as well of course..
THR (Speaker Symbol) TRACK 267
Then we wouldn't need the work play thus saving spave for what is needed :)
Original comment by joaoalve...@googlemail.com
on 22 Feb 2013 at 2:15
Oh, and maybe then there was enough space for the characters on the sky board
as well :D
Original comment by joaoalve...@googlemail.com
on 22 Feb 2013 at 2:16
I really think it's an acceptable solution to have consecutive numbers for this
function. LCD is a problem, EEPROM is another, I don't want to change the
CustomFunction structure only for that ...
Original comment by bson...@gmail.com
on 22 Feb 2013 at 3:22
Ok, yes, it is an acceptable solution, indeed much better than before. it just
could be better. ;)
LCD would be solved with the symbol solution then, so it's out of the way :)
EEPROM, must all the boards have the same eeprom structure?? I do understand
that this wouldn't be possible in all the boards..
I could easily find a few more reasons for you to change the custom function
structure ;)
No, Now seriously, it was just an idea. If it is not possible, or is too much
trouble, I do understand.
Original comment by joaoalve...@googlemail.com
on 22 Feb 2013 at 3:37
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
joaoalve...@googlemail.com
on 22 Feb 2013 at 12:39