You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
PR #11 added protocol 5. In the pull request, it is explained that the signals from the remote were already "incorrectly" recognized as protocol 3, but that sending did not work using protocol 3.
Well, the same was the case for me, until I tweaked protocol 3 in PR #33. After that tweak, we have this:
Note how close the values are. Indeed, close enough that the fuzzy matching implemented in rc-switch may ignores the difference.
As a result, my remote, which definitely sends using protocol 3 (based on analyzing raw timings), regularly is detected as protocol 5 instead.
So, I now wonder whether perhaps protocol 5 is really the same as protocl 3, and the numbers in it were simply fuzzed up as "looking nice and working", as opposed to being based on raw timings?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I should add that my Brennenstuhl switch can be controlled with both protocol 3 and 5, so it also seems to ignore the minor differences in the timings.
PR #11 added protocol 5. In the pull request, it is explained that the signals from the remote were already "incorrectly" recognized as protocol 3, but that sending did not work using protocol 3.
Well, the same was the case for me, until I tweaked protocol 3 in PR #33. After that tweak, we have this:
If one changes things to a uniform base unit of 100us, we get:
Note how close the values are. Indeed, close enough that the fuzzy matching implemented in rc-switch may ignores the difference.
As a result, my remote, which definitely sends using protocol 3 (based on analyzing raw timings), regularly is detected as protocol 5 instead.
So, I now wonder whether perhaps protocol 5 is really the same as protocl 3, and the numbers in it were simply fuzzed up as "looking nice and working", as opposed to being based on raw timings?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: