DiyLightAnimation
Hardware => Lynx EtherDongle => Topic started by: CourtBard on September 24, 2011,
-
So this may be an ignorant question, but I am not making the connection. I understand that the new etherdongle is designed for pixelnet protocol, and that on the main hub, there is a DMX out. I know (think) that the SSR4 and Express use DMX, so my question is this. The etherdongle can handle ~16000 channels, but is designed mainly for RGB string type sequencing. If (in theory) you had ~16,000 strings of regular old LED lights and wanted each string to be controllable seperately, is this possible? I realize it is kind of a crazy idea, but just in theory, would it work? My understanding is that there is only a dingle DMX out from the hub, so that would only output a max 512 channels (1 DMX universe).
The reason I am asking this is because I do not have the money to invest in RGB strings, so I am going to be stuck starting off with the plain old LED strings. I don't want to buy/build an older lynx dongle because I would eventually like to be able to take advantage of the features of the etherdongle. If I use the etherDongle, am I limited to a single DMX universe?
I have been following along with light animation for a while, but have never been able to get the hardware to get into it, so please be kind to an excited newbie >.d9
-
No, a single EtherDongle cannot control 16,000 "standard" LED strings. If you are not planning to run Smart Strings you can load a DMX-Only version of the firmware on the board which will give you 4 universes of DMX (2048 channels total). You would not need the SS Hub, instead you would use the passive combiner (wired in reverse) to break out the feed from the EtherDongle to 4 cables (universes) of 512 channel DMX.
If you have not invested in the regular Lynx USB Dongle, I would highly recommend the EtherDongle. The cost will be minimally higher, but you will have the capability of 4 USB Dongles in one unit and all the future developments planned for the EtherDongle. Of course, timing may be an issue. I don't want to speak for RJ so only he can say when units would be available via an EtherDongle Coop.
-Mike
-
I figured that the full 16K would not be available. I am assuming that you would use a bunch of SSR4's or expresses? You would need a ton for that many channels, so I think the cost would be prohibative.
If I understand then, you would take an ether dongle, re flash it for strictly DMX, and 4 DMX universes would come out. That would go to the combiner/splitter and the 4DMX universes over pixelnet would be split into 4 individual DMX universes. What would you do from there, dasiy chain a bunch of ssr$'s etc together to fill up all of the channels within the seperate DMX universes?
Just out of curiousity, why are you limited to 4 DMX universes with the etherdongle? My understanding of the pixelnet protocol is that it uses 4096 channels which I believe is 8 DMX universes? So why not have access to at least the 8 DMX universes of one of the four pixelnet universes available on the etherdongle?
-
Because their is only four channels of data and DMX is limited to 512 channels per channel. 4 channels of pixelnet(4096) is 16,384 channels. This why I use pixelnet and not DMX for RGB pixels.
RJ
-
I see. So the etherdongle has 4 pixelnet universes worth of channels, but we are in effect changing those pixelnet universes to DMX universes, so since there were 4 pixelent universes, now we have 4 DMX universes instead. I was thinking that we were gaining access to the DMX universes within a single pixelent universe rather than converting the four pixelnet universes into DMX universes. Do I have that correct?
Another question if I may. What would people use at the other end of the etherdongle when you have 2048 DMX channels to play with. I noticed in one of your light show demo videos RJ, that you pointed out quite a few expresses in boxes on posts. Is that the "suggested" way to handle the channel counts? I know that I am opening up a big can of worms as far as the "suggested" way, but I am just thinking that if I have 2048 channels to play with, that means I need 128 expresses or 512 SSR4's with DMX. That's a lot of boxes spread around the yard and at about $70 for the express for mouser parts (plus XX fo the PCB) or $26 (plus XX for the PCB), that means we are talking around $13,300 just for enough SSR4 parts (plus however much the PCBs run and cost for the boxes, cords, shipping, etc.) or $8960 for the express parts (plus PCB, boxes, cords, shipping, etc.) to run all those channels.
I know that coops bring the prices down a bit on that, so those numbers will definitely be high. Now, looking at SmartStrings with those figures in mind, we are looking at about $85 for the smart string controller parts (plus the cost of the PCB) and a 128 Node smart string. Again coops should bring the price down proportionally, so if my numbers are right, you could get about 105 smart strings for the same cost as the express parts for 2048 channels, or 156 smart strings for the same cost as the SSR4 parts. That equates to 13440 RGB nodes for 105 strings or 19968 RGB nodes for 156 strings. Of course one etherdongle has 16,348 channels, so you would not be able to run all those nodes on one etherdongle, but, as RJ pointed out, you could simply add another etherdongle...
I realize that with 2048 DMX channels you are able to get a lot of the regular old led strings per single channel, so your light count will be much higher than with the RGB nodes. On the other hand, if you were to take almost 20,000 RGB nodes, and spread them around, you could do some amazing things. If I understand correctly, you could space each RGB LED node out 4-6 feet from the previous one, so you could spread them around better in things like bushes or trees. Alternatively, you could take those 128 node strands and wire tie them up to look like icicles, and now you have fully controllable collor changing icicles. Just some thoughts and some figures that are probably way off because I do not have the figures for the boxes, PCB's etc. Not to mention all of the soldering that would need to be done for all of those boards <fp.
-
Hi CourtBard,
I have no idea what you are getting at?????
where do you see $85 for a SSC? (more like $8.00 per SSC)
Rick R.
-
I am not suggesting that I need this, but an idea I just got from reading this. Wouldn't it be possible to design a hub that would split up 1 pixelnet universe into 8 different universes of DMX? Like have 8 RJ45 outputs and you could plug into them. Or even to go further, have a splitter for the 4 universes of pixelnet into 32 DMX outputs on one board. The only issue I would see would be cost with not having that many people needing such an item to have the PCBs made to spread it out through.
-
I am starting to think I was wrong about pushing for the etherdongle to have both a pixelnet and dmx firmware
It was simple with just the pixelnet firmware and force folks to use the ss hub(s) to get the dmx out. Seems trying to include folks without pixelnet hardware (i.e.: dmx only controllers) is causing more problems. Just because a device can output 2048 dmx channels does not mean you have to use all of those channels. That is like complaining to your vehicle manufacture that it has too much horse power and you can't red line the engine the whole time the engine is on. I thought it would be nice for folks not have to buy/build a SS hub and just use a combiner which is much cheaper
btw: this is just my personal opinion and it has nothing to do with being part of the DLA staff.
My apologies to RJ
Rick R.
-
I am not suggesting that I need this, but an idea I just got from reading this. Wouldn't it be possible to design a hub that would split up 1 pixelnet universe into 8 different universes of DMX? Like have 8 RJ45 outputs and you could plug into them. Or even to go further, have a splitter for the 4 universes of pixelnet into 32 DMX outputs on one board. The only issue I would see would be cost with not having that many people needing such an item to have the PCBs made to spread it out through.
Jeff how do you figure 8 dmx universes out of one pixelnet universe?
The EtherDongle with DMX firmware does 2048 channels which equals 4 DMX universes
Why would RJ spend hundreds of dollars to design and produce another board when the combine already does it?
Rick R.
-
I'm sorry but I do not understand the question, When you say is that the recommended way to handle the channels?
The etherdongle simples creates either 16,384 channels of pixelnet or 2,048 channels of DMX. There is no recommended way to use them. You use how ever many of them you need to run your controllers. If a person has 4 expresses he only needs 64 channels. But many users are using in the thousands already so it gives them a away to handle the larger channel counts easier and less costly than a bunch of standard dongles.
RJ
-
Two comments
Start slow
DLA rules - non-commercial use only
RM
-
The etherdongle simples creates either 16,384 channels of pixelnet or 2,048 channels of DMX.
I didn't get that from the earlier descriptions... I thought you could hangle off a DMX network IN ADDITION to the pixelnet that was going on using the DMX-labelled jack on each Active Hub. So... you'd yet 16384 pixelnet PLUS 2048 DMX if you had all 4 Active Hubs in place.
Did I misunderstand the original videos or your statements now?
Steve
-
Courtbard, I don't think the intent for pixelnet is to enable 1000's of AC controlled channels, like using Lynx Express or other AC controllers on a massive scale.
To me, there is a distinction to be made here regarding the past and future model of how and Christmas Light Show might be controlled. Everything in between is also possible and actually likely.
The traditional model has been: using AC controllers for "string level" control in your show. The typical controllers for this were AC controllers and you would use Lynx Express, SSR4, LOR, RENARD, D-LIGHT, etc. .... and plug in any type of light strings you want for that. People started using LED vs. incand. lights ... but there are store bought lights and AC based.
The new/future model is for "pixel level" control in your show. This is where Pixelnet comes in ... as you can imagine that with just a single 100 node smart string ... your talking about 3(rgb) x 100, or 300 channels needed to control just one string. In the AC controller world, thats one channel --- but also limited to one color and is string level. So if your talk about a megatree with 16 strings in it ... then you need 4800 channels to control that at a pixel level using rgb per node. (300*16)
Further, the ability to output 512 channels of DMX per SS Hub, via the SS HUB DMX OUT, is really just en emulation of 512 channels of pixelnet into a DMX512 universe. So you don't get all the pixelnet channels PLUS another 512 DMX per SS hub, you just get 4096 channels of pixelnet per SS Hub ... and you can select (via jumper) which 512 channels of pixelnet will also be mirrored into the DMX OUT. So if you selected the first 512 channels for the DMX OUT, you get pixelnet channels 1->512 on pixelnet AND you also get DMX channels 1-512 on the DMX OUT ... but they must do the exact same thing, so unless you just want to mirror all 512 channels, its not really getting you additional channels per se.
So to me, I was able to run two houses with tons of lights using 256 AC channels in 2010. If I just want to add a fairly modest amount of RGB items to my display this year ... then I"ll also be adding at least 1 pixelnet universe to control those items ... but it will require over 3000 channels of pixelnet to control those items and upgraded software (LSP 2.0 vs. LOR S2 ... or xlights/vixen).
I think where the ether dongle really comes in and shines ... is its ability to allow a fairly full show (or at least one full house) of RGB capability in a single device ... at the pixel level. And with the DMX out ... and using AC controllers. It also eliminates the need for 4 DMX dongles and a combiner, etc. And then the amazing bonus of the ether dongle is how RJ has designed it to be even more ... like eventually a show controller (director) and host daughter boards ... and have a wireless interface?
-
The etherdongle simples creates either 16,384 channels of pixelnet or 2,048 channels of DMX.
I didn't get that from the earlier descriptions... I thought you could hangle off a DMX network IN ADDITION to the pixelnet that was going on using the DMX-labelled jack on each Active Hub. So... you'd yet 16384 pixelnet PLUS 2048 DMX if you had all 4 Active Hubs in place.
Did I misunderstand the original videos or your statements now?
Steve
Steve,
You are correct. The EtherDongle, when using PixelNet firmware, will be able to drive 16384 PixelNet channels AND 2048 DMX channels, with the understanding that the DMX channels are mirrors of some of the Pixelnet channels as described by taybrynn above.
What RJ was likely referring to is the two versions of firmware available. The DMX-Only firmware is available for those who do not want to run ANY pixelnet. In that case you get 2048 regular channels of DMX using the passive combiner (splitter) with no need for an SS Active Hub and PC power supply. It ends up saving you as little money on hardware for those who don't need PixelNet support (yet).
-Mike
-
I am starting to think I was wrong about pushing for the etherdongle to have both a pixelnet and dmx firmware
It was simple with just the pixelnet firmware and force folks to use the ss hub(s) to get the dmx out. Seems trying to include folks without pixelnet hardware (i.e.: dmx only controllers) is causing more problems. Just because a device can output 2048 dmx channels does not mean you have to use all of those channels. That is like complaining to your vehicle manufacture that it has too much horse power and you can't red line the engine the whole time the engine is on. I thought it would be nice for folks not have to buy/build a SS hub and just use a combiner which is much cheaper
btw: this is just my personal opinion and it has nothing to do with being part of the DLA staff.
My apologies to RJ
Rick R.
I know what you're saying but I disagree Rick. I think it was a great idea to create the two versions of firmware. There are enough users in the DMX-Only world who will want to invest in the EtherDongle yet save money by not needing to purchase a SS Hub and PC power supply. I think any confusion that is arising will be short lived once more info and the hardware if available to the masses.
-Mike
-
I am not suggesting that I need this, but an idea I just got from reading this. Wouldn't it be possible to design a hub that would split up 1 pixelnet universe into 8 different universes of DMX? Like have 8 RJ45 outputs and you could plug into them. Or even to go further, have a splitter for the 4 universes of pixelnet into 32 DMX outputs on one board. The only issue I would see would be cost with not having that many people needing such an item to have the PCBs made to spread it out through.
Jeff how do you figure 8 dmx universes out of one pixelnet universe?
The EtherDongle with DMX firmware does 2048 channels which equals 4 DMX universes
Why would RJ spend hundreds of dollars to design and produce another board when the combine already does it?
Rick R.
I took 4096 and divided by 512. I was not saying it could be done with current hardware, but just wondering if it was possible if someone wanted to make something to do it. Since the current smartstring hub can split out the DMX using the jumper, I thought it would be possible to have a RJ45 jack connected to each of the outputs at once for 8. It was just a blue sky idea that I threw out there.
-
I took 4096 and divided by 512. I was not saying it could be done with current hardware, but just wondering if it was possible if someone wanted to make something to do it. Since the current smartstring hub can split out the DMX using the jumper, I thought it would be possible to have a RJ45 jack connected to each of the outputs at once for 8. It was just a blue sky idea that I threw out there.
It's not possible with the current hardware. The EtherDongle only has four 485 driver chips. Certainly a variation or a separate board could be designed to handle additional DMX universes, but I suspect that's not in the works.
-Mike
-
I took 4096 and divided by 512. I was not saying it could be done with current hardware, but just wondering if it was possible if someone wanted to make something to do it. Since the current smartstring hub can split out the DMX using the jumper, I thought it would be possible to have a RJ45 jack connected to each of the outputs at once for 8. It was just a blue sky idea that I threw out there.
It's not possible with the current hardware. The EtherDongle only has four 485 driver chips. Certainly a variation or a separate board could be designed to handle additional DMX universes, but I suspect that's not in the works.
-Mike
I know it is not possible with current hardware, just wondering if it was possible to actually do it. I looked at the Hub traces, and saw it was just different pins on the PIC being sent to different headers, so thought instead of sending it to a header, just sending each trace to an actual connector.
-
That is not the intent. It is possible of course but when you get to large channel counts why would you want to struggle with blocks of 512 channels. It is costly and cumbersome at that point. It like trying to use a bike to deliver big screen TV's.
You would not do this would you? You move to a Truck to do that. Something designed to carry more channels. Thats what pixelnet is, it is the transport between my hardware that is not limited to small blocks of channels.
I mean as you said yourself why would someone wany to run that many channels of DMX equipment. The only thing I can think of is to try and run large counts of pixels on DMX. This seems again like using a bike to deliever big screen TV's. The logic would be what? "cause I know how to ride a bike"
So yes I could increase the part count while increasing the size and cost to get 8 universe of DMX out of it, but think of this. I would increase size and cost to get half as many channels then it does now and make it harder to handle them in the yard.
I mean remember the etherdongle cost only a little more than a DMX dongle does so you are getting a lot of bang for the buck.
The reason Pixelnet is the way it is, was to get away from this.
You can go with Ethernet all the way to the controller also but I already explained the reason I did not here :
http://diylightanimation.com/index.php?topic=5174.0
RJ
-
Totally understand, and I stated that I wasn't needing it for myself. I see the benefit in using the SSCs and have quite a few to use.
-
I know what you're saying but I disagree Rick. I think it was a great idea to create the two versions of firmware. There are enough users in the DMX-Only world who will want to invest in the EtherDongle yet save money by not needing to purchase a SS Hub and PC power supply. I think any confusion that is arising will be short lived once more info and the hardware if available to the masses.
-Mike
This was my point. I want to go with the etherdongle because it seems pointless to go with an older model if the newer one does everything the older one did and more, plus it is not that much more expensive. I do not have the money to invest in all of the RGB stuff at this point, so I will be sticking with DMX led strings for now, but want the ability to ugrade later without having to get another dongle, etc. I just wanted to know what the max channels of DMX were for the etherdongle. I don't plan on having nearly that many channels.
Two comments
Start slow
DLA rules - non-commercial use only
RM
I am planning on starting slow. Aain, just wanted to see what the potential was.
I understand that these are all for non commercial use as well.
-
Hi CourtBard,
I have no idea what you are getting at?????
where do you see $85 for a SSC? (more like $8.00 per SSC)
Rick R.
I was including the $70 some odd for the 128 node string as well. Just trying to calculate the prices for a complete RGB string including the controller.