smart strings X 2

[t.jo13]

I am planning on 2 - 8ft trees in my display this year, and was going to use leds set up in spiral format. Now with the nutcracker software I am going to switch to smartstrings. So here is the question : I want both trees to do the same thing at the same time, there will be 16 strands that is one ss hub, do i need another ss hub to control the second tree or can they be somehow linked to the same ss hub ? I also thinking each string would have to have an ss controller too 

[chrisatpsu]

if you want them to do the same thing only part of the time, copy and paste in the software.
if you want them to do the same thing all the time, set the ssc's to the same address per tree

example of #2
start channels using 100 nodes per string as an example
tree #1
ssc1   001
ssc2   301
ssc3   601
tree #2
ssc1   001
ssc2   301
ssc3   601

[t.jo13]

do I need another ss hub ?

[pk]

A smart string hub supports 16 smart string controllers.  Are you making a 360 or 180 degree tree? 

[chrisatpsu]

both trees can be on their own active hub, or you can use passive hubs connected to the main if you only have one active hub
if using two active hubs, and you have both sets of controllers configured the same, just make sure both hubs are set for the same pixelnet universe.

if that sounds confusing, just ask a lot of people can clarify.

[tbone321]

You are making this far more complicated than it needs to be.  You will probably want two hubs if for no other reason than to cut back on the amount of wire running around.  You could probaly wait for the next coop and get two passive 16 port hubs which would save you some money.  Put both hubs on the same universe and set up your controllers so that each tree is using the same channels.  Then whatever you do for one will work for both.

[t.jo13]

And if I understand correcty I will need  a ss controller for each string?

[chrisatpsu]

each node needs to be connected to a ssc, it doesn't have to be for each "string" of the tree.

[Steve Gase]

And if I understand correcty I will need  a ss controller for each string?

It depends.

If you only need 50 nodes per sting, you could get a string that is twice that long and fold it back -- 2 'logical' strings controlled by a single SSC.

an 8 ft tree would have 3" spacing or 4 nodes per foot.  8 x 4 = 32 pixels... lets add a couple more for the hypoteneus and call it 40 pixels.  The max smart string nodes per SSC is 128.  so, you could have 3 logical strings per SSC or 4 if you wanted to skimp. 

you said 16 strings?  is that 16 logical strings? or 16 128-node strings?   between 4-6 controllers in the first case or 16 controllers in the second case.

regardless of what you do with the first tree, it is good advice to duplicate it for the second tree. 

[tbone321]

I don't understand what Chris is saying but yes, each string needs its own SS controller.  Connecting multiple strings to one controller can pull too much current and blow a fuse or damage the controller and the controllers are at a low enough cost that is really shouldn't be much of an issue, especially compared to the cost of the strings.  Later, if you decise that you no longer want the trees to do the same thing, then you can simply assign the controllers on one of the trees to new addresses and you are good to go.

[taybrynn]

THe most straight forward way to do it is one SSC per Smart String item used.

If you want to map out 1/2 a smart string (in the software) as string1 and the other 1/2 of a smart string (in the software) as string2 ... you can do that and share a single SSC (as Steve and Chris are saying).  The example would be say you need 50 nodes per string, but you bought a 100 node string and folded it over after the 50th node, so nodes 51-100 were physically activing just like a second string of 50 ... then yes, you could share the same SSC on that 100 node stirng and just segment it in the software, provided the software can do that.  I know it can be done in LOR + xlights and LSP 2.x ... and not sure about vixen, but probably can there also.   One downside besides physical constraints and matching those in the software is that the "String mode" on the SSC is kind of crippled or limited, since it doesn't allow a 50/50 split currently and you would lose that capability in trying to save on SSC(s), or at least have a string mode thats a little different than normal.

I don't know if its really worth shadowing one tree with the other, when a single etherdongle (vs. using a lynx dongle) seems like it could give full control of both trees for $20 more ... and then (as CHris said) you'd just copy the sequencing from one tree to the other ... but have the optional of having them operate on their own if you wanted to.

I would also advise using TWO SS Hubs just because of the reasons mentioned and also because getting into passive hubs wouldn't really save much $$ and would actually be more of a pain.

You can also use SS Passive hubs (optionally with their own power supplies) ... but I think you wouldn't save money and the setup would likely be less clean and more complicated and very little cost savings, if any.  I like using the SS Passive hubs when large distances are involved and maybe your looking for one SS item here or there, and maybe distributing across a roof and you can't have a SS hub everywhere. 

WIth trees, you have localization going for you ... and having one SS hub per would be the ideal and cleanest.

[smeighan]

The nutcracker currently supports strings that are folded. I am getting ready to release an arbitrary fold into the target generator.

Basically you tell me
1) how many strings (a string to nutcracker is always the physical rgb device you bought (like  from ray wu).
2)How many pixels per string
3) spacing between pixels

These three are there now in the Nutcracker, what is new is
4) Number of folds.

Let me give an example, you have 8 strings, 128 pixels each and you want to fold your strings 3 times so that you end up with 24 strands.


well  .
1) Number of strings: 8
2) Number of Pixels: 128
3) Spacing between pixels: 3"
4) Number of folds: 3

Now , here comes the cool part. Since 3 divided into 128 is 40 with 8 left over. The new code will wrap the string 3 times (up,down,up) and then down the 4th strand by 8 pixels. You would then start your next string where the 9th pixel would be go down 32 pixels and then continue to wrap. 

So in this case 128 pixels x 8 strings = 1024 pixels.
1024 pixels / 40 pixels per strand = 25.6 strands instead of what might have looked like 24 (3 wraps for 8 strings).

What if you dont want to wrap the few extra pixels ?
Tell Nutcracker that the strings are even multiples of the wrap.

So in the above example

1) Number of strings: 8
2) Number of Pixels: 120 <= Make this a number evenly divisible by the wrap. 8 pixels will not be used.
3) Spacing between pixels: 3"
4) Number of folds: 3

Now you get exactly 24 strands.

With this new release coming it will also support matrices and rays.

Let me show you how this arbitrary wrap process works to make a mini tree

1) Number of strings: 2
2) Number of Pixels: 128
3) Spacing between pixels: 3"
4) Number of folds: 8 <= in the current Nutcracker I only allow this number to be 1 or 2

Now you will end up with a total of 16 strands, each strand will have 16 pixels. This will be a minitree that is almost 4' tall. Make it into a 180 degree tree and almost all of my effects will look good

thanks

 The example would be say you need 50 nodes per string, but you bought a 100 node string and folded it over after the 50th node, so nodes 51-100 were physically acting just like a second string of 50 ... then yes, you could share the same SSC on that 100 node string and just segment it in the software, provided the software can do that.  I know it can be done in LOR + xlights and LSP 2.x ... and not sure about vixen, but probably can there also. 

THe most straight forward way to do it is one SSC per Smart String item used.

If you want to map out 1/2 a smart string (in the software) as string1 and the other 1/2 of a smart string (in the software) as string2 ... you can do that and share a single SSC (as Steve and Chris are saying).  The example would be say you need 50 nodes per string, but you bought a 100 node string and folded it over after the 50th node, so nodes 51-100 were physically activing just like a second string of 50 ... then yes, you could share the same SSC on that 100 node stirng and just segment it in the software, provided the software can do that.  I know it can be done in LOR + xlights and LSP 2.x ... and not sure about vixen, but probably can there also.   One downside besides physical constraints and matching those in the software is that the "String mode" on the SSC is kind of crippled or limited, since it doesn't allow a 50/50 split currently and you would lose that capability in trying to save on SSC(s), or at least have a string mode thats a little different than normal.

I don't know if its really worth shadowing one tree with the other, when a single etherdongle (vs. using a lynx dongle) seems like it could give full control of both trees for $20 more ... and then (as CHris said) you'd just copy the sequencing from one tree to the other ... but have the optional of having them operate on their own if you wanted to.

I would also advise using TWO SS Hubs just because of the reasons mentioned and also because getting into passive hubs wouldn't really save much $$ and would actually be more of a pain.

You can also use SS Passive hubs (optionally with their own power supplies) ... but I think you wouldn't save money and the setup would likely be less clean and more complicated and very little cost savings, if any.  I like using the SS Passive hubs when large distances are involved and maybe your looking for one SS item here or there, and maybe distributing across a roof and you can't have a SS hub everywhere. 

WIth trees, you have localization going for you ... and having one SS hub per would be the ideal and cleanest.