SS string length - number of nodes per string

[ghethco]

I'm just getting started with smart strings.  I want to order some strings, but I'm having trouble deciding on length.  Looks like the price per node is less with the longer strings, but I'm not sure if I will ever need shorter strings.

One reason I can think of is if you have an isolated item like a mini-tree that only needs 50 nodes (say).  Are there any other reasons?

Say for example, if you're doing a megatree and you want to have (say) 200 nodes on it.  Does it make any difference whether you use 4 strings of 50 or 2 strings of 100?  Is the programming any easier one way or the other?

Or maybe another example, say you want to do a palm tree, and you want 50 nodes on each vertical run.  Would it make the programming easier if you make each of those vertical runs a separate string of 50 nodes?  Or would it be just as easy with 100 node strings?

Gary

[rdebolt]

As far as programming it all depends on your layout. If you can put your strings where you want and use a longer string then the better off price wise. You would only need 1 SSC instead of 2 or 3. The nice thing about the nodes is that you can make them any length that you want. I use different spacing and lengths all over my house. Around windows, roof, garage, arches and so on. Just make sure that you stay within the node count limits of 128 nodes and that your power supply is able to handle what you are doing using the 80% rule.

[keitha43]

Max length is 128 nodes per SSC. I go from the ground to the top and back down to the ground. It is 84 nodes long. In LSP you can create 2 controllers called 1up and 1down of 42 nodes each for example. I found that using more than 1 up/down section was harder to quickly remove from the tree for repairs if needed.

[Steve Gase]

I based my choice on the number of channels in a Pixelnet universe (4096) and the attempt to even-out the number of attached strings on the active hub (16).
 
4096 divided by 3 channels per pixel is 1365 pixels.
1365 pixels divided by 16 strings is 85 pixels per string.
 
This also worked out when I try to buy the cheapest string size -- the largest 128-pixel string can be chopped off at 85, leaving 43.  If you combined 2 off these left-over pieces, (43+43) then you can get another 85-pixel string (with a left-over).    I only need to join 2 pieces on every third string -- saving a bit of work.
 
The 1365 pixels per hub also figures into the size of power supply.  Planning for the max number of 1365 smart string pixels, and the .029amp per bulb, I'd use 40 12v amps, or 480 watts.
Don't forget to set aside capacity so that you only use 80% of the rates power...  480 / 80% = 600 watts
Get a 600-watt, single rail supply to match this configuration.

[RJ]

I based my choice on the number of channels in a Pixelnet universe (4096) and the attempt to even-out the number of attached strings on the active hub (16).
 
4096 divided by 3 channels per pixel is 1365 pixels.
1365 pixels divided by 16 strings is 85 pixels per string.
 
This also worked out when I try to buy the cheapest string size -- the largest 128-pixel string can be chopped off at 85, leaving 43.  If you combined 2 off these left-over pieces, (43+43) then you can get another 85-pixel string (with a left-over).    I only need to join 2 pieces on every third string -- saving a bit of work.
 
The 1365 pixels per hub also figures into the size of power supply.  Planning for the max number of 1365 smart string pixels, and the .029amp per bulb, I'd use 40 12v amps, or 480 watts.
Don't forget to set aside capacity so that you only use 80% of the rates power...  480 / 80% = 600 watts
Get a 600-watt, single rail supply to match this configuration.

Steve is dead on with what my thinking was when I created the stuff.  the 600 - 650 watt power supplies are the cheapest cost per watt normally as they are the most common. The cat5 and 20awg wire on the light strings can handle the current for 128 nodes safely but going with more you are exceeding the confortable range of the wire on the lights (and cat5) so you would need to cut them and feed them seperate. So I did everything with the idea of 128 nodes as the length per string max. 

RJ

[Steve Gase]

Or maybe another example, say you want to do a palm tree, and you want 50 nodes on each vertical run.  Would it make the programming easier if you make each of those vertical runs a separate string of 50 nodes?  Or would it be just as easy with 100 node strings?

Gary

To your original question...  from a smart string controller, etherdongle, or hub perspective.  It really doesn't matter how you do this...   go separate strings, or do fold-over or even multiple back-and-forths... they all work.
 
Reason to do back-and-forth:  you save on the number of smart string controllers.  If you can implement 3 segments with one longer string and one SSC, it will be cheaper than 3 SSCs each with a smaller string to work with.
 
Reason to use a single string for each segment:  if you your mind can get around the mapping of the "physical" pixels, and how to map them to the "logical" world, then you'll have no problem doing back and forth.  If you find it hard to think in those terms and set up your software to match, then single strings can be easier for you.
 
Software can make this mapping easier... LSP has a wizard to help.  Nutcracker also has a model to do the translations. 
I suggest you experiment with both approaches to see which works for you.

[zwiller]

Or maybe another example, say you want to do a palm tree, and you want 50 nodes on each vertical run.  Would it make the programming easier if you make each of those vertical runs a separate string of 50 nodes?  Or would it be just as easy with 100 node strings?

Gary

To your original question...  from a smart string controller, etherdongle, or hub perspective.  It really doesn't matter how you do this...   go separate strings, or do fold-over or even multiple back-and-forths... they all work.
 
Reason to do back-and-forth:  you save on the number of smart string controllers.  If you can implement 3 segments with one longer string and one SSC, it will be cheaper than 3 SSCs each with a smaller string to work with.
 
Reason to use a single string for each segment:  if you your mind can get around the mapping of the "physical" pixels, and how to map them to the "logical" world, then you'll have no problem doing back and forth.  If you find it hard to think in those terms and set up your software to match, then single strings can be easier for you.
 
Software can make this mapping easier... LSP has a wizard to help.  Nutcracker also has a model to do the translations. 
I suggest you experiment with both approaches to see which works for you.

+1  I went back and forth on a number of ways how to do things and have decided on using all smart gear but using various programming on my SSC's.  Remember, just cause it is smart doesn't mean you need to use it that way.  IE using 1 SSC with groups of 32 pixels to do a "bank" of 4 mini trees with 128 pixels total.  Basically, 4 dumb mini trees.

For my live trees that need more than 128 nodes, I plan to use multiple SSC's programmed for 3 channel mode with same start channel so I can use as many pixels as I want on it.  My live trees will end up being "dumb" this way. 

Steve is exactly right, you need to embrace how the logical and the physical layout works together.  It takes time but it will click. 

FYI I always buy largest strings from Ray and cut and splice like a madman... 

[ghethco]

Thanks for all the info guys.  I just ordered my first smart strings.

I soldered up my first LE over the weekend, great fun :-)

I'm getting really excited now!

Gary