Home AMX User Forum AMXForums Archive Threads AMX Hardware

MVP-8400 will not callibrate

GaryrGaryr Junior MemberPosts: 5
Hi,

We have a MVP-8400 that will not accept any touch comands except in a 2 inch area at the centre-bottom of the screen. This is also the case in the callibration page making impossible to callibrate. The customer says that after a firmware update the unit intermittently lost callibration and had to be reset but now it does not want to play ball. I'm inclined to disregard the firmware issue as the fault was intermittent or maybe a different but similar symptoms.

Any ideas?

Regards Gary

Comments

  • TurnipTruckTurnipTruck Junior Member Posts: 1,485
    Hold down the bottom left external button and the bottom of the five way pad on the right side for ten seconds or so until the panel gets into the calibration screen. You should be able to fix it from there.
  • GaryrGaryr Junior Member Posts: 5
    Thank you for your reply, however, even when the TP is in the callibration page it will not respond to any touch outside of a small area at the bottom/centre of the screen.

    Regards, Gary
  • TurnipTruckTurnipTruck Junior Member Posts: 1,485
    Sounds like you have a bad touch overlay. Do you have another 8400 to make an experimental transplant? Otherwise you're sending it out. In warranty-no problem, out of warranty-BIG $$$.
  • GaryrGaryr Junior Member Posts: 5
    Hi,

    Unfortunatly I don't have a spare 8400 to compair it with. Although I believe the overlay is of a resistive type and from mesurments I have made on the four terminal ribbon cable that comes from it, it seems OK. If the customer is correct in what they say I am curious as to why it was intermittent after a firmware update. I notice there is new firmware out as of yesterday for this model so I might try installing that, what do you think?
  • TurnipTruckTurnipTruck Junior Member Posts: 1,485
    If you suspecta firmware update caused it, install the previous firmware and see what happens. There was a firmware update for some panels a while back that required a newer touch driver. I don't think anything about yesterday's firmware had to do with touch.
  • GaryrGaryr Junior Member Posts: 5
    The firmware update was done by the customer several weeks ago not by us I therefore do not know what the original version was. Do you know of an archive of old firmware on here as I searched but could not find any.

    Regards, Gary

    I must be blind!!!

    Just found the firmware archive. The version on the TP has a note by it saying (NOTE: Prior to upgrading to this release from any versions prior to v2.55.43 please contact AMX Technical Support) although I don't know what the original firmware was, I wonder if this may be the problem.
  • glr-ftiglr-fti Junior Member Posts: 286
    Recently learned of another trick you might want to try to verify that you need to RMA your device. When you get to the setup page press and hold the calibrate button. It will bring up a Calibrate Test page from which you can see the crosshairs wherever you touch.
  • DHawthorneDHawthorne Old Timer Posts: 4,584
    If the overlay is really OK, it pretty much has to be a CF corruption. You can confirm this with tech support, and your options will be get a card and put it in yourself, or send it to AMX. Turn around in such cases is pretty good.

    Make real good and sure you emphasize to the customer that this is why they shouldn't try firmware updates themselves. I have a strong suspicion they upgraded past that intermediate firmware that you need to load on older panels before the most recent will work.
  • John GonzalesJohn Gonzales Junior Member Posts: 609
    How did the customer get the firmware file and why does he have it? That's in the dealer protected section of the website. I would recommend placing passwords on the equipment to prevent unauthorized access like this. Although it's not recommended, you can handle firmware upgrades remotely if it's so urgent for the client (which it normally shouldn't be). glr-fti's suggestion of checking the TP overlay is excellent.

    --John
  • GaryrGaryr Junior Member Posts: 5
    Hi John,

    I quite agree with you, the customer should leave things alone!!. But with websites like this one (url removed) that anyone can access what hope have we got?

    Regards, Gary
  • John GonzalesJohn Gonzales Junior Member Posts: 609
    Yikes, that's too bad. If I'm not mistaken that's AMX's European distribution company. You would think they of all people would try to protect the software and firmware.

    --John
  • viningvining X Member Posts: 4,368
    At least most of the software isn't up to date so if you need NS2 v2.5 or TPD4 v2.8 here's the place to get it. Of course they probably wait for stable versions before putting them out for the masses.
  • jjamesjjames Just another dude Posts: 2,905
    I don't know about you guys, but this angers me.

    As clients are getting more and more tech-savy, this is eventually going to keep happening unless something is done. This is one of those things that is utterly unacceptable, and it's obviously being done under AMX's nose.

    I know that if this happened to us, we'd be on the phone with every AMX person we know screaming & kicking, and would probably wind up calling over to Europe to give them an earful, since it's their fault. Who told them they could publicly show off the files?

    Also, Gary, could you please remove the link to their website, this forum contains end users, so now even more AMX-wanna-be's have access to all sorts of stuff. I can just see the, "Hi. I just bought some AMX stuff from eBay and downloaded the software to control it, what do I do next?" questions being posted here and going over to tech support.

    Ugh . . .
  • truetrue Junior Member Posts: 307
    To be honest, keeping it locked up behind EULAs and other agreements angers me. If I buy a product, I should be able to do whatever I want with it, within the scope of the law and lacking artificial restrictions. If a company says I can't do X with product, even though it will do X, and gives me a hard time about it, it a) frustrates me and b) devalues the product. Ultimately, I don't buy from companies that do this. (This is the main reason why I won't personally buy any AMX or especially Cres product for my own home.)

    At our company, we provide source for all of our projects. They're buying programming time and the product from us, not paying to be locked in. Our work speaks for itself and they'll call us for any future changes or upgrades. If a customer works with a project, and it is determined this is the case, then the warranty for programming is void - it's in the contract they sign when we sell the job. We haven't had any residential customers since I started working with this company do this as far as I know, but if I was going to spend the kind of money it takes for this gear, I would want to know that I or anyone else could modify what was running.

    Should we restrict shade tree mechanics from working on these new drive-by-wire vehicles? As they become more tech-savvy, do we need to put protections in place to restrict them? What about their own computers - should the ability be locked up, unless they call a specialist to fix it, because they're becoming more competent and / or interested?

    If they break the gear and need to call you to fix it, charge. They broke it, not you or poor workmanship.
  • Jimweir192Jimweir192 Junior Member Posts: 502
    There are 2 parts to this...

    If a client is paying for a customised system and is contractually paying for a programmer's time - then in my view they should be owning a licence for the source.

    If a client is paying for an "off the shelf" control system with a boiler plate gui and standard code, then no they are not paying for the source only a licence to use the compiled code.

    A mechanic with a few spanners isn't going to stand a chance on a modern say BMW, you wouldn't even get the engine cover off. BMW dealer mechanics have to undergo regular training and assessment to be able to work on BMW vehicles and to access the tools / facilities they need.

    I have no issue with client's having a copy of the source if that is the contract, but the only people who should have access to the tools to use that code should be dealers / programmers.

    For an example of the importance of contractually getting this right (or wrong) have a look at

    www.nao.org.uk/publications/nao_reports/07-08/0708512.pdf

    and search for source code! As a british taxpayer I don't find it amusing - yet I can fully understand Boeing's stance...
  • jjamesjjames Just another dude Posts: 2,905
    "true":

    So you provide them code, and you've made allusions to that they can modify it if they wish. Modifying it is absolutely fine, but they can't load it since they don't have NS2, unless of course you give them that as well, which you'll obviously be in violation of your dealer contract, and it should be revoked.

    I understand your points, but let's look at these as well.

    1) You represent AMX. We do not sell AMX because it is our right, in fact it's quite the opposite: it's a privilege.
    2) When dealers do bad things (such as allowing end users to have tools to modify running code), it makes AMX looks bad. AMX has every right to yank dealers / programmers representing their product in a less-than-ideal way.
    3) You have every right in the world to use a different product if you do not like a company's policy of their product (i.e. software, etc.) usage. No one twisted any of our arms to be an AMX dealers.

    It amazes me people think they have a "right" to everything, especially when they buy a product. You do not have a right to do anything you want (how a product / software such as NS2, IREdit, etc works) because it doesn't do what you want it to. Use something else. Don't like the IRIS? Use that other thing out there that captures IR.

    No one forces you to use Windows, you have options to use a Mac or load up your PC with Linux (which I guess you do because it's "open source & free.") No one forces you to eat at a smokey bar, you can go do a different one. No one forces you to drive a gasoline powered automobile, you can drive an electric car or ride your bike. No one forces you to use AMX and agree to their EULAs and other agreements, you can go sell Cre$stron, Control 4, Savant, Vantage, CQC or any other of the many control systems.

    It's the rogue companies / dealers / programmers with their I'll-do-what-I-want agenda that give other companies / dealers and AMX a bad name because they went and screwed something up because they don't like or care for a company's EULA that they were not forced to sign to begin with.

    Let's all read aloud together this excerpt:
    The AMX Software is subject to restrictions on distribution described in this License Agreement. AMX Dealer, Distributor, VIP or other AMX authorized entity shall not, and shall not permit any other person to, disclose, display, loan, publish, transfer (whether by sale, assignment, exchange, gift, operation of law or otherwise), license, sublicense, copy, or otherwise disseminate the AMX Software. Licensee may not reverse engineer, decompile, or disassemble the AMX Software.

    ACKNOWLEDGEMENT.
    You hereby acknowledge that you are an authorized AMX dealer, distributor, VIP or other AMX authorized entity in good standing and have the right to enter into and be bound by the terms of this Agreement.
  • TurnipTruckTurnipTruck Junior Member Posts: 1,485
    I can't think of another type of product besides custom control systems whos public image is so able to be made or broken by its dealers.
  • DHawthorneDHawthorne Old Timer Posts: 4,584
    There is a compelling argument to be made for providing a customer with the source code that has nothing to do with them modifying it themselves: if something happens to damage your relationship with the customer, it opens the door to them getting someone else to take over the project. On first glance, that may seem like a bad thing, but I don't see it that way. One, if me or my company have damaged the relationship through our own misdeeds, we deserve being replaced. Providing the source code, after a fashion, makes the statement that I am confident that I won't be putting myself in that position, that I will treat them right, and that I am not afraid of givng away the source. Two, if the customer is the one responsible for damaging the relationship, I don't really need them as a customer, and don't want to stand in the way of being rid of them.

    When I say that, however, I distinguish between the main code and device modules. I feel as though I own my modules, and though I will happily share a compiled version, I'm not going to be handing out the source to the customer. What I said applies to the custom code running their particular setup, not device modules.
  • jjamesjjames Just another dude Posts: 2,905
    DHawthorne wrote: »
    There is a compelling argument to be made for providing a customer with the source code that has nothing to do with them modifying it themselves: if something happens to damage your relationship with the customer, it opens the door to them getting someone else to take over the project. On first glance, that may seem like a bad thing, but I don't see it that way. One, if me or my company have damaged the relationship through our own misdeeds, we deserve being replaced. Providing the source code, after a fashion, makes the statement that I am confident that I won't be putting myself in that position, that I will treat them right, and that I am not afraid of givng away the source. Two, if the customer is the one responsible for damaging the relationship, I don't really need them as a customer, and don't want to stand in the way of being rid of them.

    When I say that, however, I distinguish between the main code and device modules. I feel as though I own my modules, and though I will happily share a compiled version, I'm not going to be handing out the source to the customer. What I said applies to the custom code running their particular setup, not device modules.

    I agree with everything you said. I wouldn't mind giving them the code. But I'm certainly not going to give them the tools to upload the code to the processor as 1) that'd be REALLY stupid and 2) it's in violation of our dealer contracts.
  • truetrue Junior Member Posts: 307
    jjames wrote: »
    "true":

    So you provide them code, and you've made allusions to that they can modify it if they wish. Modifying it is absolutely fine, but they can't load it since they don't have NS2, unless of course you give them that as well, which you'll obviously be in violation of your dealer contract, and it should be revoked.

    Of course, they'll need to obtain NS2 by their own means. However, they can have any dealer program for them, or, if necessary, they can later learn / pay to be able to do it themselves. You bring up an important point that giving them this software is potentially a violation of the dealer contract. I never stated doing this. However, this is the point I wanted to make and exactly why I do not support our company dealing with vendors who impose such limitations. Personally, I wouldn't want to be sold programmable gear that for no technical reason, some "touched" individual or company can modify, but I cannot. Such is the market that we can't avoid this now, but hopefully things will change (this is something I am actively working toward pursuing on my own time).

    The end user owns the gear; as such, they are free to do whatever they wish with the gear so long as it falls within applicable laws. While it may be a "privilege" to be licensed the software to make the machine work, they're free, within legal means, to run whatever code they wish on the hardware.
    jjames28 wrote:
    It's the rogue companies / dealers / programmers with their I'll-do-what-I-want agenda that give other companies / dealers and AMX a bad name because they went and screwed something up because they don't like or care for a company's EULA that they were not forced to sign to begin with.

    Perhaps with salesmen. I've had many customers complain that they weren't provided and couldn't get source code to systems they have due to the company who programmed it denying them this code. This has nothing to do with NS2 licensing, but is a dealer issue. This gives dealers, programmers, and potentially the product manufacturer a far worse name than someone who can actually use the product.

    I try to do what the customer wants, within my ability and authority. That's what I am paid to do.
    DHawthorne wrote:
    When I say that, however, I distinguish between the main code and device modules. I feel as though I own my modules, and though I will happily share a compiled version, I'm not going to be handing out the source to the customer. What I said applies to the custom code running their particular setup, not device modules.

    I disagree, and offer all code I write or reuse as that is what the customer pays for. But this is a matter of opinion on copyright rather than on some false notion of IP, EULA or a technical reason.

    This is getting a bit OT... thread split?
  • viningvining X Member Posts: 4,368
    true wrote:
    I disagree, and offer all code I write or reuse as that is what the customer pays for.
    That is definitely not what the customer paid for. Any code specifically written for a specific job should be given to the customer if they desire it but the majority of the code are dealer created modules which should be licensed for use in that project and the source code for those modules should not be provided. Of course if it's your time and effort, essentially your money you can obviously do what ever you want with it.

    If you spend 150 hours writing a module and creating a matching GUI are you going to charge them $18,750.00 for use of the code and access to the source, of course not. Even if you can sell this module 100 times at a lesser rate before it's obsolete do you want anyone the customer may bring in later to have access to your code specific to a particular device? If I contacted your employer and told him I already have a system (ebay) that contained the same devices that you guys have written major modules for you would sell them do me for say $400 each with the source code so I can if effect spin off a company based on your hard work. If so what's the companies name cuz I need some modules.

    true wrote:
    I try to do what the customer wants, within my ability and authority. That's what I am paid to do.
    That's a common misconception, you don't work for the customer, you work for your employer and your employer contracts with the customer to perform certain services for certain wages. You then give the customer what they are paying for and hopefully nothing less. If your employer wants to give more that's perfectly fine but not required. So you are actually paid to do what your employer wants not the customer.
  • ericmedleyericmedley Senior Member - 4000+ posts Posts: 4,177
    There are not many commercially sold software packages that I can think of that provide source code. Windows? Macintosh? Microsoft? Macromedia? Digidesign/Avid? Adobe? etc....

    These software packages were written with probably the same coding environment (Csharp or C++, Java, etc...)

    Does Microsoft allow you to jack with the code in Word?

    The whole argument falls apart to me. The client does not get my source code.

    I have a few cleints who know how to get into the MVP-8400s and jack with the settings. It's no end of trouble.
  • jjamesjjames Just another dude Posts: 2,905
    I agree with Eric.

    I think this shows what kind of clients we have. I can guarantee none of our current clients want the source code. None of them would even care; they want it to work. We were hired for a reason: to make it work. I'm not sure what we would do if a client asked for code, but the millionaires / billionaires who own the worlds' largest companies could care less for the code.

    To each their own, but my beef is with the companies / people out there give out the compilers, transfer programs, anything that's meant for a dealer.

    I'm a big believer that stupidity should hurt, so if a client messes up code or a firmware transfer . . . he'd be charged triple (if I were in charge.) Haha!
  • truetrue Junior Member Posts: 307
    vining wrote: »
    true wrote:

    That is definitely not what the customer paid for. Any code specifically written for a specific job should be given to the customer if they desire it but the majority of the code are dealer created modules which should be licensed for use in that project and the source code for those modules should not be provided.

    I, and thankfully the company I work for, disagree. Our contracts state that this is exactly what they pay for, and what they will receive.
    vining wrote:
    Of course if it's your time and effort, essentially your money you can obviously do what ever you want with it.

    Exactly. :) Just like all of you, I write a module once, sometimes make a few changes, but it's the same code as anyone else with the module. I don't have to rewrite device modules for other customers. They're still willing to pay for it, even though the guy next door may have the same code.
    vining wrote:
    If I contacted your employer and told him I already have a system (ebay) that contained the same devices that you guys have written major modules for you would sell them do me for say $400 each with the source code so I can if effect spin off a company based on your hard work. If so what's the companies name cuz I need some modules.

    We sell complete solutions, not modules. :) That said, if you bought a system from us, you're free to do what you want with the device modules, so long as attribution remains in the source and source is available to us and your own customers upon request.

    Look at AMX's biggest competition... open modules and macros are rampant. You don't see this issue over there. (Rather, you see even more stringent licensing requirements for SW and associated software, and even more vendor lock-in... sigh, at least S+ is based off of a GPL compiler.)
    vining wrote:
    So you are actually paid to do what your employer wants not the customer.

    I am paid by my employer to do what the customer has requested and is in the contract - ultimately, I am being paid to do what the customer wants, and the customer is paying my employer. My employer is paying me. Just arguing semantics.
    ericmedley wrote:
    Does Microsoft allow you to jack with the code in Word?

    No, and therefore, I don't trust or use Microsoft software, except as required in my work environment. I trust code many neutral and critical eyes have looked at, not that of a vendor trying to sell me something.
    ericmedley wrote:
    I have a few cleints who know how to get into the MVP-8400s and jack with the settings. It's no end of trouble.

    It's no end of customer-paid service calls, in my opinion. :) After being billed a couple of times, they tend to learn to stop jacking with it.
    jjames wrote:
    I can guarantee none of our current clients want the source code.

    Most of ours don't care, until they go to have work performed by a previous company who didn't provide the source and the source isn't available on the unit, and they want changes or additions that will now require a complete rewrite. We've had this happen with a number of companies that we have had to rewrite systems for. This hasn't just happened once, and is really the major crux of my argument behind source code availability, even more so than the fact that I want the code that is running on my devices.
  • patbpatb Junior Member Posts: 140
    true wrote: »
    Originally Posted by ericmedley
    Does Microsoft allow you to jack with the code in Word?

    No, and therefore, I don't trust or use Microsoft software, except as required in my work environment. I trust code many neutral and critical eyes have looked at, not that of a vendor trying to sell me something.


    I was going to try and make an intelligent statement to support what Eric and others have been saying, but after reading that statement I completely understand where you're coming from and I realize that an intelligent agrument would be completely lost on you.

    I hear that Robinson Crusoe is looking for a roommate - then you don't have to trust those vendors that try to sell you cars, or the supermarkets that try to sell you groceries off the shelf instead of letting you grow everything yourself, those electric companies that try to sell you electricity, or the cities that actually make you pay for using water that should be free because it is so readily available on the earth. Good luck.
Sign In or Register to comment.