Padding and losing start of subsequent recordings

[kevbo]

I've started a previous thread, and since starting it, realized that the subject and overall content don't quite address the real problem, so I'm starting another one, hoping to get attention.

The scheduling logic changed in .908 (and remains changed in .910). The change comes into play with padding time.

Assume you have a show scheduled from 8-9 on one channel, and another from 9-10 on another channel. Both have 1 minute pre-padding and 2 minutes post-padding.

Before .908, the 8-9 show would forgo its post-padding, and the recording would switch to the new channel (and file) at 9:00. Now, the 8-9 show gets its 2 minutes of padding, and the second show doesn't start until 9:02.

If this is what was intended, can I request a way to change the behavior?

This new behavior has caused me to miss the first two minutes of several shows. It has only been in the last 24 hours that I really figured out what was going on, and that the behavior had changed.

(My other point is, in the case where you have two tuners and the second one is unused, it could be used for the second show. It appears that a second tuner isn't used unless the actual scheduled start and stop times overlap, for example, when I'm recording something from 8-9, and a second show from 8:59-10. In that case, the second tuner would be used. There's no reason it couldn't also be used if I have an 8-9 and a 9-10, allowing both recordings to have their full pre and post padding.)

Thanks for any comments/help. (And thanks for the program!

[pathfinder]

I am having the same problem (thought it was the networks or server PC clock). If the post-padding is causing this, will setting it to "0" fix this? I never had a problem with the older versions so I'd like to see it changed back to the old way or would setting the post-padding to "0" do the same thing.

That said I'd like to thank sub for a GREAT job on GBPVR.

[kevbo]

I think setting the padding to 0 would fix it, but I'd still like to have the padding in situations where I can (where there's no subsequent recording).

And yeah, I echo the "thanks" for the great program.

[sub]

I'll correct this for the next release. It's just a bug I'd overlooked.

[kevbo]

Thanks a _ton_ for the response...I hadn't heard that anyone had confirmed it as a bug.

I appreciate it.

[gblinckmann]

Does anybody know if this fix made it into v0.91? If so, it would be a great reason to upgrade.

[kevbo]

I've posted a new topic again. Something changed in this, but it doesn't look good: the change would actually cause you to lose both recordings that run up against each other.

Check for a new thread:
" .9105: problems with overlapping recordings"