I am always puzzled by why we seem to continually look at unsupported devices. What is wrong with using the ones in the wiki? Saving a dollar or two or three does not make sense to me when I look at the total cost of my display investment and I don't need the hassles of trying to make the non supported stuff work. I am not talking about totally new stuff, but I just don't see the rationale for using WS2811 vs using the 180x stuff. Can someone explain this to me.
IMO, the problem with the smart strings in the wiki was the water-proofedness of the pixels. The IP66 gave them a bad name, but even the IP68 pixels are not error free when tension is applied.
The new FirePix string that recently came out are well-designed, the injection-molded fixture, the ability to mount them and have them point outwards to get better effects, and many various other attributes made these lights attractive.
The initial offering for these Technicolor / FirePix lights use WS2811 -- i believe that decision was based on reducing cost.
For some people, the WS2811 lights are more about cost, and for others it is about the ability to select from more shapes.
I don't know if other vendors will offer the option, but getting the TM1804 chip instead of the WS2811 in the technicolor/firepix strings from Ray Wu is something that seals the deal for me.
I am waiting on a order for firepix strings with TM1804 -- I don't trust the WS2811 to make it worth a significant investment. But I also ordered a couple short WS2811 strings that I will experiment with. I hope to report back with my results for each -- SOON.