question about Nutcracker with the Smart Strings

[JerryPlak]

have an question about Nutcracker with the Smart Strings if anyone knows.
can the Nutcracker work with hybrid mode or just inidvidual pixel control
of the Smart Strings
 
PS: I going to post this in the Smart Strings and Nutcracker forms

thanks
Jerry Plak

[smeighan]

have an question about Nutcracker with the Smart Strings if anyone knows.
can the Nutcracker work with hybrid mode or just inidvidual pixel control
of the Smart Strings
 
PS: I going to post this in the Smart Strings and Nutcracker forms

thanks
Jerry Plak

Is hybrid mode where you can have two physical strings but they appear as one logical string?
if yes, then yes

maybe i dont understand hybrid mode

[tbone321]

In hybrid mode, the controller adds a set of RGB channels to the front of the string.  These channels, if set, control the entire string.  If any of these channels are set, all of the other channels are ignored and the entire string follows those first three channels.  I doubt that your software would work with this in its current configuration.

[Steve Gase]

hybrid lets you use the first channel in the string to control ALL of the pixels in the string.
if you configure a 6-pixel string in hybrid mode, then the first pixel controls the rest, and you get a dumb string-like behavior. 

in smart string mode with start assigned as 12.
pix1=12/13/14
pix2=15/16/17
pix3=18/19/20
pix4=21/22/23
pix5=24/25/26
pix6=27/28/29

in string mode you have dumb string control
pix1-6=12/13/14

in hybrid mode you have dumb or smart string control
pix1-6=12/13/14
pix1=15/16/17
pix2=18/19/20
pix3=21/22/23
pix4=24/25/26
pix5=27/28/29
pix6=30/31/32

The problem with Nutcracker and hybrid is that you need to NOT use the first three channels -- but nutcracker is assuming that all channels are contiguously assigned.

Earlier, I asked for a new feature -- the ability to assign the starting channel in nutcracker for EACH of the strings.  This change would address 2 problems... (1) hybrid mode, and the need to skip over the first composite pixel.   and the (2) need to start a string on the next smart string hub, after it runs out of channels on the prior hub.   

just to explain (2)...  if I have string lengths of 128-count, and string #15 starts at 3952, and #16 starts at 4080 -- that string  will not be able to finish its run before it runs out of channels on hub-1 (4096 is the max).  We really need string #16 to start at 4097 or later.  Allowing each string to have its own manually-chosen start channel fixes this.

[smeighan]

hybrid lets you use the first channel in the string to control ALL of the pixels in the string.
if you configure a 6-pixel string in hybrid mode, then the first pixel controls the rest, and you get a dumb string-like behavior. 

in smart string mode with start assigned as 12.
pix1=12/13/14
pix2=15/16/17
pix3=18/19/20
pix4=21/22/23
pix5=24/25/26
pix6=27/28/29

in string mode you have dumb string control
pix1-6=12/13/14

in hybrid mode you have dumb or smart string control
pix1-6=12/13/14
pix1=15/16/17
pix2=18/19/20
pix3=21/22/23
pix4=24/25/26
pix5=27/28/29
pix6=30/31/32

The problem with Nutcracker and hybrid is that you need to NOT use the first three channels -- but nutcracker is assuming that all channels are contiguously assigned.

Earlier, I asked for a new feature -- the ability to assign the starting channel in nutcracker for EACH of the strings.  This change would address 2 problems... (1) hybrid mode, and the need to skip over the first composite pixel.   and the (2) need to start a string on the next smart string hub, after it runs out of channels on the prior hub.   

just to explain (2)...  if I have string lengths of 128-count, and string #15 starts at 3952, and #16 starts at 4080 -- that string  will not be able to finish its run before it runs out of channels on hub-1 (4096 is the max).  We really need string #16 to start at 4097 or later.  Allowing each string to have its own manually-chosen start channel fixes this.

Ok, I understand.

Currently i only ask you #strings and #pixels on each string. I assume, each string will start on pixel#1.

Ill make it so you can edit the starting pixel of each string, I will assume 1 but let you change it as needed. this should sastify both requirements.

correct?

sean

[dpitts]

Steve,

That was a very good explanation. The ability to set starting address for every string may not be needed. How about having the ability to define ranges. So in your example, the first range would be (1 - 4079) and second range would be (4096 - 4223). Nutcracker would just fill a range then move to fill the next range until (total number of channels) have been allocated an output channel number. 

[JerryPlak]

Steve, Thanks for the input 

the ability to assign the starting channel in nutcracker for EACH of the strings.  This change would address 2 problems... (1) hybrid mode, and the need to skip over the first composite pixel.   and the (2) need to start a string on the next smart string hub, after it runs out of channels on the prior hub.   

[Steve Gase]

Steve,

That was a very good explanation. The ability to set starting address for every string may not be needed. How about having the ability to define ranges. So in your example, the first range would be (1 - 4079) and second range would be (4096 - 4223). Nutcracker would just fill a range then move to fill the next range until (total number of channels) have been allocated an output channel number.

that would certainly help with the second scenario...  dealing with the boundary condition between hubs.  but it doesn't help with the first scenario... the hybrid/control pixel.

In suggesting a solution, I think we should avoid anything that is specific to the Lynx configuration (since Nutcracker is hardware-agnostic and intends to works with various solutions).  That is why I am suggesting an override field for the starting pixel in each string.  It gets assigned (only if it is needed) when you create your target model. 

Theoretically, there might be another non-DLA solution out there that does not have a 128-pixel max, but each string need to fit within a 512-channel universe.  having this flexibility could help with that hypothetical product as well.

[Steve Gase]

Ok, I understand.

Currently i only ask you #strings and #pixels on each string. I assume, each string will start on pixel#1.

Ill make it so you can edit the starting pixel of each string, I will assume 1 but let you change it as needed. this should sastify both requirements.

correct?

sean

that would be GREAT, Sean!

Thanks.

[dpitts]

Steve,

That was a very good explanation. The ability to set starting address for every string may not be needed. How about having the ability to define ranges. So in your example, the first range would be (1 - 4079) and second range would be (4096 - 4223). Nutcracker would just fill a range then move to fill the next range until (total number of channels) have been allocated an output channel number.

that would certainly help with the second scenario...  dealing with the boundary condition between hubs.  but it doesn't help with the first scenario... the hybrid/control pixel.

In suggesting a solution, I think we should avoid anything that is specific to the Lynx configuration (since Nutcracker is hardware-agnostic and intends to works with various solutions).  That is why I am suggesting an override field for the starting pixel in each string.  It gets assigned (only if it is needed) when you create your target model. 

Theoretically, there might be another non-DLA solution out there that does not have a 128-pixel max, but each string need to fit within a 512-channel universe.  having this flexibility could help with that hypothetical product as well.

Actually it would have solved both. You just define as many ranges as strings to satisfy hybrid mode. But when you are not in hybrid you may have to only enter two ranges and save yourself all the input. But it looks like Sean has accommodated us yet again thanks Sean.

[smeighan]

Steve,

That was a very good explanation. The ability to set starting address for every string may not be needed. How about having the ability to define ranges. So in your example, the first range would be (1 - 4079) and second range would be (4096 - 4223). Nutcracker would just fill a range then move to fill the next range until (total number of channels) have been allocated an output channel number.

that would certainly help with the second scenario...  dealing with the boundary condition between hubs.  but it doesn't help with the first scenario... the hybrid/control pixel.

In suggesting a solution, I think we should avoid anything that is specific to the Lynx configuration (since Nutcracker is hardware-agnostic and intends to works with various solutions).  That is why I am suggesting an override field for the starting pixel in each string.  It gets assigned (only if it is needed) when you create your target model. 

Theoretically, there might be another non-DLA solution out there that does not have a 128-pixel max, but each string need to fit within a 512-channel universe.  having this flexibility could help with that hypothetical product as well.

Actually it would have solved both. You just define as many ranges as strings to satisfy hybrid mode. But when you are not in hybrid you may have to only enter two ranges and save yourself all the input. But it looks like Sean has accommodated us yet again thanks Sean.

In the process of finishing this request.
Giving you a table to fill in where for each string you set the starting pixel number is the easiest to code.

I have one additional prompt
"use default of 1 for every string?"
If u don't answer yes, I will put up a 2 column table. The column headings will be
String# and starting pixel#

I will then build my mapping table and save it as your target model.

Steve, is also correct in that I try to remain agnostic to hardware and sequencers wherever I can.

My big project at oracle is going on for most of this week, I will see how much time I can get. This task is about 4 hours of work.

I also have the fixes for the blank spots in vixen and lor. I currently am only playing an animation once (like one rotation of a spiral) rather than cycle it until it fills up your requested sequence length.

I hope that also gets released this week.

I want to work on the nutcracker 2.0 stuff. Remember, I basically wrote nutcracker for myself and the ability to sequence an entire rgb device from nutcracker synced to the music is one of my goals for the summer.

[Steve Gase]

good news!  thanks for the update.

[JerryPlak]

Great News, thanks for the update. Sean!