- This topic has 48 replies, 17 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 11 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I can’t help but wonder why no-one has managed to write a custom firmware for these?
I’m not sure if it’s possible with this machine, there always used to be loads of custom fwse for the fox t2.
SSThing – 51 mins ago »
I can’t help but wonder why no-one has managed to write a custom firmware for these?
I think the reasons are that firstly Humax appear to have made it more difficult to get access to the operating system and they have encrypted some of the sidecar files. This makes it significantly more difficult to create custom firmware. I guess it wouldn’t be impossible but the people with the skills perhaps have other things they want to do in their lives.
Even if you could make sense of the sidecar files, you couldn’t do the equivalent of a Foxy (ie. patch the file to allow copying of HD) because that part of the Humax disk is read-only to the external world. If you could circumvent that, the format of the .hjm files is strange. Is it encrypted or is it compressed? Why are large parts of the file different, when recording, now and one second later? All I’ve managed to discover so far is that a .hjm file appears to be a JSON file containing url encoded base64 data. What the data means, I’ve no idea! And yes, I do have other things I want to get on with.
SSThing – 21 hours ago »
I can’t help but wonder why no-one has managed to write a custom firmware for these?
I really don’t see any real direct connection between Custom Firmware (CF) for either the Foxsat of the HDR T2 and the various video files created by them.
Yes, the video files are likely encrypted, but the CF ‘hooks’ into the underlying Humax operating system and enhances it’s operation.
Because the Humax operating system was open source and unencrypted, clever people dis-assembled the code and found how to hook into it to be able to run the CF alongside the OS. It is here that the problem arises as it appears to be encrypted (or similar) and no on has found a way of ‘into’ it (yet) and I doubt if it’s through lack of trying.
Two different techniques have been used to obtain unencrypted video files.
a. Foxsat. Nowster developed a patch that somehow prevented the OS encrypting stuff after it has been installed.
b. Others (sorry can’t credit as I don’t know who) found what was being used as the encryption key and developed a system within the CF for retrospectively decrypting the files.
So is the real problem encountered by people the desire to decrypt stuff (a foxy equivalent), or to have an all singing and dancing CF, one function of which will be to decrypt or prevent encryption of video files?
Trev – 1 day ago »
So is the real problem encountered by people the desire to decrypt stuff (a foxy equivalent), or to have an all singing and dancing CF, one function of which will be to decrypt or prevent encryption of video files?
For me – a Foxy equivalent will do. On a 2000T I managed to do some housekeeping (rename, delete, move) functions remotely as well. On the 5000T I can’t even do these.
Trev – 1 day ago »
Because the Humax operating system was open source and unencrypted,
To be clear the HDR-FOX T2 uses open source components but the main executable is very definitely not open source. the same applies to the FVP models.
Two different techniques have been used to obtain unencrypted video files.
a. Foxsat. Nowster developed a patch that somehow prevented the OS encrypting stuff after it has been installed.
b. Others (sorry can’t credit as I don’t know who) found what was being used as the encryption key and developed a system within the CF for retrospectively decrypting the files.
The FVP provides unencrypted SD recordings out of the box (by transfer to a DMS server on a PC).
Is this page new?
https://uk.humaxdigital.com/open-source/
I have just found this but it may have been there all the time?
If it’s new, does it mean that perhaps a custom firmware will finally be possible?
SSThing – 55 mins ago »
Is this page new?
No it has been there for a long time.
If it’s new, does it mean that perhaps a custom firmware will finally be possible?
For a start it doesn’t appear to list the FVP models although the FVP manual gives an email address to send requests to. Having the open source code that has been modified is a minor step towards custom firmware but the challenge is to get access to the box and understand the memory layout. I don’t think it is impossible to develop custom firmware for the FVP models but it is more difficult and I suspect the people with the skills may be drawn towards the hardware that is designed for open source software.
I assumed that the HDPVR-5000T in the list would be the one?
SSThing – 2 hours ago »
I assumed that the HDPVR-5000T in the list would be the one?
Nope; that is the Finnish equivalent of the HDR-FOX T2 and dates back at least eight years.
OK thanks.
It seems the likelihood of Humax providing a modern box half as good as the HDR-Fox T2 with custom firmware is pretty slim. The FVP-5000T could have been the dream box, but just isn’t polished enough and is too sluggish. The Manhattan T3-R looks very promising and well supported. I would swap immediately if they could offer a multi-room capability, either by DLNA streaming or just opening up the recordings for remote network access so thought I’d send them a query:
“Is remote network access to the recorded files planned for a future
firmware release and would the files be a format that I can play them
from Windows or similar? Even if this was limited to the SD files it
would be very useful for multi-room. I would even be happy if
multiple T3-R boxes could share their content between themselves if
that was simpler to implement.”
They replied just over an hour later – they are clearly interested in customer care – take note Humax:
“Thanks for writing to us. DLNA and USB media playback features were on our roadmap but were de-prioritised due to lack of interest. It’s possible they could still happen, but they’re not planned for the v2 update next year. When we start planning out the v3 software we’ll consider DLNA/media playback again, but so far we’ve had only two other requests for it.”
It would seem that Manhattan are prepared to listen to customers and respond based on demand. If enough people request multi-room support then we might just get it, albeit we are probably stuck with Humax for another 18-24 months for the development time. Light at the end of the tunnel? Maybe.
P.S. Yes, I am too tight to pay out for Sky Q!
You could buy the latest Humax aura.
I hadn’t seen that, it does look quite impressive. Maybe that is where all the Humax software engineers have been. It doesn’t quite seem to do multi-room unless using the app on an Android compatible device. Maybe if I had two of them they could stream to each other, unless they aren’t compatible with their own app. Certainly one to watch to see how it develops and what the user reports are like once a good few are in use. Might be the end for the FVP-5000T.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.