DiyLightAnimation

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

I'm probably not the only one out there that is running multiple types of networks/devices. The DMX out from the active hub was a really nice feature that I used to connect some DMX flood lights last year. I was thinking of a small device that took in pixelnet and had a pixelnet out (to continue the signal on, or maybe even 2 pixelnet outs) and a DMX/Renard/other out so that you could attach your other boards/devices. Does this sound useful or not needed?

 My experience running the Renard's on DMX was not good. In theory it worked but the results were disaterest. Now in saying that, I took this to an extream. I went from a 300 channel Renard base show to a 6000 channel pixelnet/ dmx/ Renard. I converted the 300 Channels of Renard's to dmx and with testing it all worked, but when the show ran, it was a mess. Alot of emi issues, flicker, and non responsive. I had FPL come out and get rid of my smart meter back to the original, installed emi filters on the inputs and ac's of the controllers which improved it alot, but still was ugly. I had to change the Renard's back to their original firmware, put them on a seperate rs485 port just to get then to respond correctly. I also had to change the configuration of the show with the Renard's in the first universe, first 300 channels and not at the end. The Renard's are not designed for dmx. I know some people have had success, but not me. I've sold all my Renard's and moved forward.
                               This is just my experience and my opinion.

                                       animal

I'm not sure if supporting multiple universes is really going backwards.  What I see it as is cost savings.  In reality, it would probably cost LESS to support 4 universes than it does to support one.  In a single DMX universe system, you would need 8 jumpers or a 2 pole 4 position rotary switch to select which Pixelnet universe as well as 8 more jumpers to select which of the 8 segments you want it to convert.  Making it a 4 DMX universe unit would eliminate all but one of the DMX universe jumpers which would be used to select either the lower or upper 4 DMX universes.  In this case, the converter would have the same output as a USB Dongle flashed for Pixelnet.  This would also save people money if they need more than one DMX universe since the converter supports 4 of them.  This would also capitalize on the equipment that has already been developed for Pixelnet on the USB dongle as far as signal distribution.  I don't really see how that would be going backwards, especially if it would save the users money on both the cost of the board and the number needed for their displays.

Steve, for comparison.

32 universes

DLA
1 Etherdongle, (4) 16 port passive  hubs.  $94 + 4x$42 (last years prices) = $262. Now you need to get SSC's. Assume you try to maximize using 128 node strings. Then you only need 11 ports from each hub. figure $110 for 11 SSC's per hubs times 4. = $440. Total cost $262 + $440 = $702.
Notice our SSC's nearly triple the cost of the electronics as you add lots of pixels.
You would have 64 ports to drive strings

San Devices E682
1 etherswitch ($50) , (4) E682s ($180 assembled) = $770.
 Each string needs to be close, these outputs are not rs485. They do not have DMX.
You would have 64 ports to drive strings

J1sys ecg-p12r
1 etherswitch ($50) , (3) E682s ($180 assembled) = $590.
Each string needs to be close, these outputs are not rs485. They do offer a driver and receiver for $20 per string. If you put drivers on all 36 ports you would add another $720 to cost.
They do not have DMX.
This system will needs lots of power injection since they are driving 170 pixels per port. Those extra power supplies probably add $100-200 more
36 ports to drive 36 universes.

If there was a way (there isn't) to not need the SSC's, our setup would be the cheapest by far. e682 and p12r just connect their strings directly to their cards.

E682 and j1sys do not have a DSC. This is another advantage of our Pixelnet setup.

Like i said before, Pixelnet works. It is what i will be using again. I also like having more ports. It helps when i want to have one line going to this eave, another to this arch.

thanks
sean

The pixelnet spec is in the wiki.  One thing to watch out for is the pinout for pixelnet in the spec is wrong.
/mike