Options
Experience with Escient Fireball and Modules
TurnipTruck
Posts: 1,485
in AMX Hardware
Greetings,
I am considering adding Escient Fireballs to my systems. How AMX-friendly are they?
How well do AMX's modules work in terms of song browsing, etc from UIs without substatial coding?
Thank you for any advice.
I am considering adding Escient Fireballs to my systems. How AMX-friendly are they?
How well do AMX's modules work in terms of song browsing, etc from UIs without substatial coding?
Thank you for any advice.
0
Comments
These aren't 100% optimized, but they work.
I have an old MKII in the garage. It has served as a WinCE CEPC target platform shortly after I bought it years ago. It has all the required hardware to implement a CEPC on WinCE 3.0 and up.
Thanks for the advice.
I did look at the modules on Escient's site. I'm wondering if anyone has any experience with them. They seem more up-to-date than AMX's.
I use them instead of the AMX modules. I've talked with Escient, and they are developing a new one as we type that will support cover art. I have a hacked version of my own that does that, but it's a bit on the wonky side because of the way the Escient protocol works.
A couple of things about the Escient modules as released:
1) They have both fake feedback and real feedback on the play/stop/pause buttons. Get rid of the fake feedback where the feedback channel is engaged on the button press. The real feedback is a tad sluggish, but if you leave the fake in, what you get is the button flashing a few times as they syncronize; very irritating. I would rather a sluggish response than an uncertain one.
2) Button and feedback channels are hard-coded. You don't need to use their screens, but you can't assign your own channels either. Some of the hard-coded numbers are imbedded in the code throughout; I took some time and converted a bunch of them to variables, including the one that sets how many lines of display are on your screen. But there are still some hard numbers in my version.
3) Their way of having one module running several devices on multiple panels is a bit strange, but it works. You can safely get rid of the page where you choose a device if you initialize the variable properly (a must, as far as I am concerned, if you only have one Escient running).
I've attached my revised modules. Something to look out for: the path for cover art seems to vary by machine. Open up your Fireball in a web browser and get a cover on screen, then look at the properties for the proper path. I am defaulting to the generic cover art when you change modes (music, DVD, Internet radio), but that is the part that is wonky; it especially doesn't like to change back when coming off DVD. Switching discs forces it to update. In light of the fact that Escient will be releasing their own revision with this functionality, I left it as a "good enough" solution for now. My revison only supports currently playing cover art, not during browsing; mainly because the screens I typically use don't have the room for it. If you poke around, you'lll see I have added some code for browsing cover art, but it is 100% untried and untested. I just got to the point where I had to move on to other things.
I didn't include Escients TP files; you'll need those, if for nothing else, to copy the channel numbers.
I think Escient is on the right track and may provide a rock solid media server in the future, but they still have work to do.
Paul
Thank you.
It already has cover art display, command queing, it's very solid and most important you can see the .comm file in the module..
Does anyone know of a way to wipe the Fireball drive clean? Now that I figured out how it sorts music, I'd like to dump it and start over, maybe that will correct my title browsing issues.
Thanks.
I have to agree; the interface is substantially more polished, and the hardware considerably more reliable. However, it can't come near the price point of the Escient product line.
To date I have worked with media servers from AMX, Escient, Elan, Kaliedescape and Windows Media.
In my honest opinion, the only one that has hit the mark of being very reliable is Kaleidescape. Once I understood how they were approaching their module, it fit well with how we do things. They handle multiple touch panels controlling multiple players very well. Feedback to the panels is quite fast and works reliably. Their metadata and cover art database has been almost 100 percent. (My last system with a MAX was 64%) We've put in three of them this year and they've worked pretty flawlessly. I have not had to send one unit back for repair.
I will say that their tech support is somewhat hard to get hold of. However, once you do get their attention you have it for as long as need be.
Their architecture is designed well too. You can hard-cut the power on the server and it doesn't bother it a bit. In fact, that's how you power it down. (hit the power button) Upon power up the boxes all go around and find each other within a few seconds of being online.
Sheesh, I sound like an advertisement. Sorry....
The fact you are using IR is why you haven't had issues. Don't get me wrong; I like the Escient product and use a lot of them ... but doing database lookups and browsing just plain stinks through any module I have seen. They work, but none of them work perfectly, and all of them are slow. Their own on-screen UI works great, and sometimes that is the solution - feed the video to your panel and use IR or just basic IP/serial commands to navigate. As soon as you start calling up text fields and browsing your media, then you start having trouble.
I just added support for DMS keypads to play artist/title or a playlist. It runs into the same limitation that using multiple panels has. That is they all share the same TCP connection to a server/device. This can create screen update confusion if multiple UI devices create protocol requests simultaneously. Each UI device should have its own TCP connection because the protocol can't be disambiguated. User interface information should be as consistent as possible and the conflict should happen over control which at least has an audible feedback mechanism.
Again if there is only one device all TPs need to be updated at the same time no matter who is controlling. Now you could use page tracking and only update the panels that are on the same device GUI and just update the other when they access the device but that can be a pain to implement and on a small system it's not such a big deal to update data to all TPs regardless of what page that are on providing your just updating button feedback and VT and not causing page flips and pop ups on all.
In all the cases where I have the Escient working (best case about 90% stable) is where I use a sort of hybrid RS_232 / IR control method. It basically boils down to using IR for navigation through the Escient's interface and transport controls and RS-232 for the meta data and transport state feedback.
Its a goofy animal...
I've used the "now playing" cover art on multiple projects, and it works fine, if a little slow (sometimes it doesn't refresh, sometimes it takes 15-20 seconds, sometimes it's instant). I haven't even attempted to implement the 2008xx commands; I thought they would be useful, but the fact is I haven't need that particular feature yet. So you could say it's indefinitely on the "to do " list
It's up and running and the new iTunes sync is very cool. Any changes to my iTunes or the ARQ updates each other automatically.
If you were to compare an ARQ and an Escient - you would pick the ARQ in a heartbeat. The Escient seems extremely slow to respond, especially when selecting a song to play. ARQ on the other hand, very quick. I've said it before in another post: the ARQ guys have REALLY done their homework on the integration portion. Escient doesn't give two hoots about it. Trust me, we have a client who has an Escient, and talked with a lead sales / tech guy from Escient. When the Escient guy wrote back (yes, I have a copy of the e-mail), it basically said: "it works how we said it will, and the service you receieved from us was not sub-par." Needless to say, he's getting rid of the Escient. On a scale of 1-10, I'd rate it a 1.
ARQ all the way!!
What's every ones take on these systems, least favorite to favorite or order of least prefferred to most preferred.
I would think Escient, ARQ, MAX, Kaleidescape based on hear say, not through personal experience. Any others systems worth consideration (not rebranded above items).
My experience is the opposite. We have been Escient dealers for years, and we are near ready to abandon the product due to continual failures and the above mentioned integration kludginess. We only stuck with them for so long as it is because they are considerably less expensive than the ARQ. On the other hand, I've had exactly one ARQ with an issue - a dead RS-232 port. Compared to well over a dozen Escients with bad drives (and all the media data lost) ... well, there is no comparison. I've not worked with Kaleidescape, but I sat in on a sales demo not long ago, and it looked impressive to me. Their pending lawsuit put my boss off - he wants to wait until that is settled before taking them on, but the more practical fact is we really don't need a fourth (counting MAX) line of media servers.
I think I've said as much as I can on the ARQ. Great product. Great service. What more can you ask for?
I'd also love to take a look at MAX, but way out of my price range!
Right now, we are trying to decide between the MAX and Kaleidescape servers. I believe Kaleidescape recently won the lawsuits that were pending against them, but I don't know if there has been any appeal made, or if there is another lawsuit. As far as I am concerned, if Kaleidescape gets defeated in a lawsuit, it would set a precedent that would affect MAX and any other product that moves the content to a hard-drive.
I am currently leaning towards the Kaleidescape offering because I feel that they provide a better offering for the client. You can easily add a hard drive of any size to the units. They monitor for hard drive failure and ship out a replacement when a failure is detected. The offer movie bundles on hard drives. They have some cool abilities in creating custom intros. And I feel more confident in the player offerings of the Kaleidescape at this time. We are waiting for CEDIA to see if AMX announces any major updates, improvements or offerings for the MAX line before we make a decision on which one to put in our show room, but to this point, Kaleidescape seems to me like a more complete and polished offering. Ohh, one thing is for sure tho... if either one was to offer the ability to add HD content to their unit (presumably from home video recorders at this time), that would be a HUGE plus for them in the decision
I have worked with Escient quite a bit and I agree that it is a little kludgey to integrate, but they have seemed to work fairly well once integrated. I have integrated an ARQ recently and it integrated fairly well, but as I recall, I ran into a small issue when trying to provide simple on screen remote control via the ip control. I don't remember how I got that to work, but I haven't had a problem with the unit since.
Jeff