Talk:Remote control

DVD remote image

It's not focused! Could somebody with macro on his digital camera take a new photo and replace it?

-- Miceagol 2006 Dec 8

Introducing section headers?

I suspect this article's flow would benefit greatly from the introduction of section headers. I'd suggest starting with "Function" and moving on to "History". Any other ideas?

-- Ventura 23:49, 2004 Nov 22 (UTC)

Are console controllers i.e. Xbox, Playstation, Nintendo etc.. considered to be remote controllers?

-- Unrelated, 2005 Feb 05 <USA>

Not really, they're better classified as input devices. --GalFisk 17:10, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

shouldn't the "wiimote" get a mention?

Standards

Info about standards for consumer remote controls is missing. RC5 and RECS 80 appear to be some?

-- Bypasser

Agreed. Could someone with enough knowledge to add the protocols (NEC, RC5, RC6, etc) used by various remotes (including universal remotes), and things like compatibility? I think Windows Media Center operates under a modified RC6? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.186.168.133 (talk) 18:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Tivo

"To that end, designers of the TiVo remote control replaced the standard columns of buttons on a black rectangle with a distinctive peanut shaped design that has been well received by its users [2]. This design, which has spawned several imitations, is likely to change the way consumer electronics designers approach the remote." So the Tivo has a different shape. How does this address the button issue? --Gbleem 17:33, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• TiVO astroturfing? 68.147.242.17 09:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Add example of bits and bytes

Add example of bits and bytes sent to do a command like change to channel 54.

Merger with Telecommand

After looking at the article, it seems like a "Telecommand" is a much broader term than "remote control", especially in American English. A "remote control", or simple "remote" is usually used only to describe a simple device used to control home electronics. You would hardly call a device that launches missiles a "remote control". If you have a remote that can do that though, please let me know ;-) (Patrick 08:29, 13 May 2006 (UTC))

Are you advocating a merge? I believe that making "Remote control" part of the "Telecommand" article is inadvisable. Try searching Google for "by remote control" (with quotation marks) and see that there are plenty of non–home electronics uses there. President Lethe 14:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't think the two articles should be merged at all. A remote control is a type of telecommand, so to speak. Telecommand is the broader term, and it can be described further on its article page, even if it is only to list the different types of telecommands, and perhaps provide a history and the most common uses, etc. At any rate, "remote control" should definetely be separate. (Patrick 17:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC))

Oh, O.K., then. Sorry I misunderstood you earlier. Now I see that some someone at "Telecommand" has suggested a merge. Yes, I think they should be separate. President Lethe 17:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

We should take a vote on it and either proceed with the merger or remove the merger request templates, so both articles can be cleaned up, any suggestions? (Patrick 12:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC))

I've recently had an experience that made me think that votes/polls aren't such a good idea. In that experience, I suggested a poll, which occurred; but, shortly after my suggestion, I happened across Wikipedia:Voting is evil.

I think the articles should stay separate. There is some logic of putting "Telecommand" into "Remote control"—but, then, we could start putting in radio-controlled toy vehicles and a zillion other aspects of remote controls. Actually, maybe that's not such a bad idea. Another idea is that "Telecommand" could become part of an article about missiles.

I'm not absolutely sure what to do; but it seems that this "Telecommand" stub's most appropriate place is in a missile article.

None of these articles is 'my baby'; so I'm not gonna get into it very deeply.

President Lethe 15:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Oppose merger. A TV remote control is deserving of its own article, and a Telecommand device has a much wider scope than controlling a TV. Some notes etc. - 1. Over a month has gone by and no one has been discussing this proposal. 2. The only people that have discussed it have opposed merger. 3. The proposer User:Skysmith has not given a reason for merger (as far as I can see), so I'll put a note on his/her Talk page. 4. If no one gives a good reason in the next few days why the articles should merge, I'll just go ahead and get rid of the tags. --A bit iffy 14:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

No objctions, so I've now removed the merge notice. --A bit iffy 08:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

History: ultrasound interference

I remember having a Zenith Commander remote in the 60's, and we also experienced the problem of interference -- the bell in our old telephone could trigger the On/Off/Volume sensor, and our dog's choker chain jingling would change the channel. I don't know if I can formulate this kind of personal anecdote into acceptably "encyclopedic" form, though I wonder if the current example of the xylophone interfering was also a personal anecdote? --Birdbrainscan 19:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Space Command vs Commander

I think the original name was Space Commander, and was changed later to just Space Command. I have photos of both. Rees11 20:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's a little confusing. The remotes have "Space Commander" printed on them but the contemporary newspaper articles/ads refer to "Space Command." I believe the system was called "Space Command" and the remotes were "Space Commanders." (That actually makes a lot of sense, now that I write this... anyway, either way it's OK.) 12.103.251.203 22:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

That does make sense, but I'm not sure it explains why later remotes were labeled "Space Command." See this one for example:

www.flickr.com/photos/15692756@N00/1524813919/[1]

Rees11 01:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

1950 Lazy Bones

Actually, the first remote was officially called "Lazy Bones" and was introduced in 1950. See for example Five Decades of Channel Surfing: History of the TV Remote Control [2]. Rees11 (talk) 14:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't stray off topic.

Are the last 2 lines of the toys section neccesary?

You get RC planes of all sizes. The smallest has a wingspan of 8 cm and the biggest one is over 5 metres long.

Although remote controlled planes are very fun, there is a trick in how to fly it and people who want to begin this hobby has to read the forums on which plane to buy and how to fly it.

munchman | talk; 12:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Play symbol, etc.

I can't find a page describing the standard symbols such as the play symbol, fast-forward symbol, etc. Are these formal standards or just de-facto standards? —Ben FrantzDale (talk) 15:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The "TOYS" section is inaccurate, and needs quite a bit of work.

Ladies and Gentlemen, as stated in the subject of this post, the "TOYS" section needs some work. I've been an RC Aircraft hobbiest for the last 30 years (5 years in RC aircraft), and I would be happy to clean it up for you. However, I didn't want to just start editing, without the approval of those who are here.

Some things I would change:

    1)  RC airplanes can fly without an airfoil (as suggested in the article).  Many of my most successful RC airplanes fly with a flat 6mm Depron (a type of foam) wing.

    2)  2-channel aircraft are limited to "thrust vectored" airplanes -- that is, airplanes with two propellers, and no moving control surfaces.  You fly the airplane in the same way you would drive a tank -- push both sticks forward to climb, pull both sticks back to dive, push one forward to turn, center the sticks to fly level.  These types of airplanes are found at discount stores like Wal-Mart or Toys-R-Us, and are very difficult to fly.  (The article currently says a 2-channel aircraft is controlled with rudder and elevator, which would be extremely difficult, if not impossible.)

    3)  3-channel aircraft can be Throttle/Elevator/Rudder, OR Throttle/Elevator/Ailerons.  Most of my 15 aircraft do not have a rudder, and do not require a rudder to fly extremely well.  Some good examples of this are the "Ready To Fly" ("RTF") airplanes made by ParkZone and HobbyZone.  A 3-channel radio is all that is requierd to fly an RC airplane.

    4)  4-channel aircraft can be just about anything.  Since an airplane only requires ailerons OR rudder to fly, the 4th channel can be used for other purposes (such as a bomb drop, combat module, landing gear, night-light control, thrust vectoring for twins, or anything else you can imagine).  

I look forward to your comments, and will be happy to edit the article if you allow me to.

Thank you.