Blackmagic Videohub 16x32 Route problems

[cschaftenaar]

Hi programmer(s) (William Viker)

I think i have a bug found in the Blackmagic Videohub module. Blackmagic Videohub 16x32 (old HD version) has 16 inputs and 32 outputs. I can only route to 16 outputs instead of 32. I can't route any input to the 16 other outputs (Labeled as 'Monitor') Is it possible to fix it? Below are the pics of the Videohub.

Thanx in advance! Greatings Christiaan Schaftenaar

[krocheck]

Comparing the spec with the module as implemented, the 'Monitoring' outputs are not currently supported. We'll see if anyone picks this up, otherwise, I can in a few weeks.

[cschaftenaar]

Thanx I wait for the updates 🙂

[danielmerchen]

This hurdle was one of the more frustrating little quirks I've run into with these routers. It's relatively simple to address the ports, for example, you simply say:

VIDEO MONITORING OUTPUT ROUTING:↵ 0 7↵ ↵

That said, there's the question of how to address this in the UI, since a device type isn't selected it might be easiest if there's a simple note below the monitor fields that its a feature only for certain device models. If someone were exceedingly tricky, they do print out the model in the header of the device info upon connection with the device.

On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 6:19 AM Christiaan Schaftenaar < notifications@github.com> wrote:

Thanx I wait for the updates 🙂

— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/bitfocus/companion/issues/548#issuecomment-474316288, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADN71uOcuIcuTz2BTh_e6wqv62rvnTfgks5vYMetgaJpZM4b7rRc .

-- Daniel Merchen [via] Browser | [gv] (605) 644-6210

[krocheck]

@danielmerchen there's a sync state that's done when connection starts such that these can be detected and propagated at that time. We just don't at the moment.

[krocheck]

@cschaftenaar would your expectation be to either

1. See the monitoring outputs merged into the output dropdowns for the 'Rename destination' and 'Route' actions
2. See separate 'Rename monitoring destination' and 'Route monitoring' actions.

Both have their can of worms in implementation and consequences depending on the real-world use of those outputs.

[cschaftenaar]

@krocheck I think that option 2 is the best and the easyest way. I don't know why Blackmagic named them 'Monitor' because all outputs act the same with routing like the other 16 outputs. You can also rename the 'Monitor' outputs

[cschaftenaar]

I mean option 1 :-)

[cschaftenaar]

Is this bug fixed @krocheck ?

[krocheck]

Go ahead and give the latest build a try (1359 or higher). I think its fixed but I had no way of testing.

Also, if you're able to test the RS422 routing I would appreciate it.

[cschaftenaar]

Super! :-) I'll give it a try as soon as iám home from work. I'll let you know if it works @krocheck . Iám sorry but i can't test the RS422 because i don't use it. :-(

[cschaftenaar]

O where can i download the latest build @krocheck ?

[krocheck]

https://builds.bitfocus.io/companion/

[cschaftenaar]

Hi @krocheck everything seems to work! Great work! Thanx 😊 o I think that I can test the routing of the RS422. tomorrow I am going do some test. I'll let you know if it works.

[krocheck]

No prob. Thanks!

[cschaftenaar]

Hi krocheck,

Sorry for the late answer. The RS422 is working fine. The only thing what missing in the pull-down is the option - Disconnected. You can Disconnected a port in the original BMD program. This option is also available in the pull-down. The disconnect option makes the source and destinations the same.

[krocheck]

Interesting. If you route, as an example, source 2 to source 2 is that the same as what the software shows as disconnected? It might be difficult to achieve that same structure in our dropdowns.

[cschaftenaar]

That's true. I have made a picture of an example. See source 6.

[krocheck]

Yeah, so long as the ultimate behavior is the same, the user would need to know to route to port to itself to achieve that result. We'd have to dynamically re-draw the source dropdown based on the selected destination. Way more work than its worth.

[cschaftenaar]

The behavior is the same if you route to port to itself. I't is not a problem for me to keep it as it is now. But i wanted to let you know. :-)

Thanxs for the very good support :-)

[krocheck]

Copy that. Thanks, and no prob!