ver 5 windows clients

[mvallevand]

-This might be a way to try.  Has anyone else tried this?

I used v4 to serve v5 for months until v5 had HDPVR support on Linux but not the other way around.  v4 is not as good an IPTV client as v5. Thinking about it just running v4 would make more sense.

Martin

[The Solutor]

-This might be a way to try.  Has anyone else tried this?

I used v4 to serve v5 for months until v5 had HDPVR support on Linux but not the other way around.  v4 is not as good an IPTV client as v5.  Thinking about it just running v4 would make more sense.

Martin

Is not as good TV server either.

Once you have NPVR5 in place then you can use everything you like as client from WMC to Mediaportal. I'm not a fan of the NPVR4 gui, but at least one can customize its aspect ratio/zoom to have custom views on 16/10 5/4 3/2 monitors, something that his younger sibling can't do.

If the OP likes it why not tell him an obvious way to satisfy his request?

[JEF]

I really want to stick with a windows client.
Thank you,

+1

[NumberFive]

+1

I really like the NextPVR Client GUI. I find that Kodi etc tend to have a lot of glossy menus which do look visually impressive, but don't improve the user experience. NextPVR's GUI is nicely presented, easy to understand, reliable.

The only issue I ever have with the V4 client on remote machines is that it can be a little laggy starting playback of videos, or when setting a new recording (i.e. a 2 or 3 second delay). If running on the same machine as the server, it's extremely snappy. Much better than most TV's built in menu systems. I'm sure I read before there were ways to optimise that, but I can't find now. If someone remembers the tweaks I'd love to find out.

[The Solutor]

The only issue I ever have with the V4 client on remote machines is that it can be a little laggy starting playback of videos, or when setting a new recording (i.e. a 2 or 3 second delay).  If running on the same machine as the server, it's extremely snappy.  Much better than most TV's built in menu systems.  I'm sure I read before there were ways to optimise that, but I can't find now.  If someone remembers the tweaks I'd love to find out.

That's why I suggested the hybrid solution. NPVR5 is snappy as a remote server, NPVR4 is reasonably fast as a local server.

Combine the two and you have, practically the best of both worlds

[mvallevand]

That's why I suggested the hybrid solution. NPVR5 is snappy as a remote server, NPVR4 is reasonably fast as a local server.

Combine the two and you have, practically the best of both worlds

Which implies running a v4 server for each client which is pretty crazy to me.  Not everyone like the complicated setup that you have. You could also run multiple v5 solutions this way.

Martin

[NumberFive]

I don't quite understand the proposal for using a V4 "server client" with a V5 backend "real server", as I picture it this wouldn't give "server clients" the recordings that are on the "real server"??

[The Solutor]

That's why I suggested the hybrid solution. NPVR5 is snappy as a remote server, NPVR4 is reasonably fast as a local server.

Combine the two and you have, practically the best of both worlds

Which implies running a v4 server for each client which is pretty crazy to me.  Not everyone like the complicated setup that you have.  You could also run multiple v5 solutions this way.

Martin

We are in 2021, having to convert the analogue signal a a matter of the past the most underpowered PC is able to run a TV server w/o a blink.

Even CPU based transcoding is a task managable easily by most PC. Programs once considered as heavy and bloated like WMC, today acan be considered ridiculously light.

So whats the problem? Where's the complication? You are going to use  a program capable of serving the IPTV signal and another capable of receiving and showing it. How are called those two bits are just details that can change according to user's exigence.

Now a user asked for solution for a not so uncommon exigence an I provided one. A pretty simple one I must add

Calling this "complicate" is unfair, to say the best

That's all

[The Solutor]

I don't quite understand the proposal for using a V4 "server client" with a V5 backend "real server", as I picture it this wouldn't give "server clients" the recordings that are on the "real server"??

As I wrote elsewhere I use WMC for recordings so I'm not really an expert of NPVR recordings.

But I can't see where the problem is supposed to be. You can record on NPVr5 side or locally or using NPVR4, then you can share the relevant folders vis SMB to watch a recorded channel.

Having an option more not seem a big problem to me. But maybe I'm missing something

As for picture I can't understand your request, it's not like a a complicate company network.

It's a home network with a box for a server and one for the client connected via a line, not any different than a standard NPVR setup.

The only relevant change is that NPVR4 would "tune" urls instead of tuning antenna signals.

[sub]

That type of 'v4 server on the client' solution is only really useful for live tv. It doesn't really help you if you want to have access to your recordings etc throughout your house etc.