I don't see much information on the web about PixelNet. You say this is an open protocol. Is this correct?
There is a Vixen plugin for PixelNet avaliable right now and LSP is working on one for me as we speak. The protocol is simple and as so it will not be an issue. The Protocol will be published for anyone to use in the Wiki as I get documentation done.
It is my protocol. Yes it will be open when I get done I will post a document to the wiki with the information. No you will not find it on the internet yet except at DLA and maybe never anywhere but here.
Since I have received so many PM aksing so many question I am going to post this in hopes it helps.
The confusion is that PixelNet is the the in between protocol the equipment talks. And it also at the moment is what the Software uses. With the dedicated Dongle for Pixelnet, the software will talk ethernet 1.31 and the in between will still be PixelNet. This is simular to what Phil is working on with his super DMX but I would expect the protocols to be very different. It is not DMX but a better solution to carrying the data to the controllers for high channel count systems.
I came to that conclusion 6 months ago and began working with PixelNet. I had the system ready when I left for vaction but knew there would be too many questions for me to answer while I was on vaction so I waited the 6 weeks til we return to announce it.
Didn't you notice I magically had pcbs made assembled and all the programming done 2 days after I returned.
I just decided to use my Dongle which most users already had to generate pixelnet at first. This gives me a first step 4096 channel solution that is cheap and easy. Then the next step is to release the Ethernet 1.31 dongle (it is my version of a EtherconGate) it is just a simple setup that looks like a DMX dongle and cost in the same area. This will allow over 16000 channels on the system.
I wanted to stay RS485 instead of Ethernet in the yard because of a number of reasons :
Cost - cheaper to build simple 485 equipment than Ethernet equipment. no need for switches
Distance - Much greater distance than ethernet when you have a larger area you may need a switch or other device to amp the ethernet . Rs485 pushes out a good ways.
Ablity to daisy chain like we do with the DMX
Ability to split data streams to certain devices at the higher channel count so they would not need to process all traffic to handle there channels.
Gave me more connections to carry power so I would only need one cable to run the strings.
In the end there will be no one system right for everyone. The right system will be the one that works for you.
I designed one for me to allow me to get away with simpler and cheaper and to do what I need and not a bunch of stuff I didn't.
Everyone has differnet needs and this is just one option. If you need a very advanced high tech solution with lots of bells and whistles this is likely not your solution. If you want dirt simple cost effective that will control RGB equipment then it could be your solution. There is sure to be many other choices as we move forward.
In the end you have to choose and while I am happy to point out what I see as good points on mine I will not try to convience anyone that it is the right one for you. Happy users are the ones that got what they wanted not what they were talked into.
RJ