Pixelnet to DMX converter?

[Voltorb]

There was some discussion at the end of last year concerning the creation of a Pixelnet to DMX converter for the Etherdongle.  Something like this would not require additional code for the etherdongle/conductor, and would allow controlling up to 32 DMX universes with a single etherdongle/conductor.

I'm wondering if RJ has plans of going in that direction this year? Just want to make sure I participate in the coops that will support my plans for this years show.

[RJ]

There is one user working on a DMX converter for 1 universe. Doing a multiuniverse converter takes us backwards from the direction I am going so there is no plans to support that at this time. If youre staying all dmx it makes more sense to stay dmx not to convert back and forth.

RJ

[Voltorb]

Thanks RJ.  I've got 32 Universes of E1.31 .  Even if you finish the DMX firmware for the ETD, I think that would only support 4 universes, which means 1 conductor, and 7 slaves.  I guess I'm stuck with using a computer to run the show.

[DanHouston]

Don't mean to hijack this thread, but it is a situation I am in as well....I was staying all DMX (even for the couple of pixel based items I have today), but I know I am going to do a Pixel based mega tree either next year or the year after and am planning to go the Smart String route. When I do that I will have both PixelNet and DMX in my environment, but would prefer not to....

So, any chance the current DMX devices will be converted in the future to be PixelNet (Lynx Express, Aether II, etc.)?

[jnealand]

Don't mean to hijack this thread, but it is a situation I am in as well....I was staying all DMX (even for the couple of pixel based items I have today), but I know I am going to do a Pixel based mega tree either next year or the year after and am planning to go the Smart String route. When I do that I will have both PixelNet and DMX in my environment, but would prefer not to....

So, any chance the current DMX devices will be converted in the future to be PixelNet (Lynx Express, Aether II, etc.)?

This confuses me.  Everything in my yard is DMX and everything on my house is pixelnet.  I run DMX out of the active hub to a Wireless TX and the whole yard of DMX stuff runs fine.  Even if you need more than 512 channels of DMX, you just run them out of two active hubs and do not program the channels in pixelnet.  I dedicate the first 512 channels to DMX even though I am only running about 180.  I start my pixelnet programming at 513.  I use a passive hub on my pixel tree, but I could use an active hub and have a second TX coming out of the second active hub and dedicated the first 512 channels to DMX which programming wise would be channels 4097 - 4068 and then do all my pixel net programming from that hub to start at 4069.  Hopefully that is clearer than mud.

[Voltorb]

I'm sorry I got this pot stirred.  With over 16,000 channels of E1.31 DMX, and another several hundred traditional DMX channels, I was hoping for an economical conductor solution to run it all.  The conductor is a wonderful piece of hardware for pixelnet, but Ive get a huge investment in Stellascapes hardware that I love, but can't run it with the conductor.  If I'm missing something, please chime in.

[rm357]

If you have an active hub, it outputs one block of 512 channels as DMX. There are jumpers which allow you to select which of the 8 blocks within the pixelnet universe to output. These channels are mirrored with the corresponding pixelnet block.

Most folks are using the first 512 channel block for their DMX. If you only need say 100 channels of DMX, you can start your pixels at address 101 with no overlap.

Yeah, you are right in that there is no e1.31 output from the conductor. That is something I would like to see as well to support some non-DLA e1.31 equipment that I have. I have been thinking about a pixelnet to e1.31 converter, but thinking is as far as I've gotten. I've been in program management so long that my programming skills are mostly forgotten...

RM

[DanHouston]

Don't mean to hijack this thread, but it is a situation I am in as well....I was staying all DMX (even for the couple of pixel based items I have today), but I know I am going to do a Pixel based mega tree either next year or the year after and am planning to go the Smart String route. When I do that I will have both PixelNet and DMX in my environment, but would prefer not to....

So, any chance the current DMX devices will be converted in the future to be PixelNet (Lynx Express, Aether II, etc.)?

This confuses me.  Everything in my yard is DMX and everything on my house is pixelnet.  I run DMX out of the active hub to a Wireless TX and the whole yard of DMX stuff runs fine.  Even if you need more than 512 channels of DMX, you just run them out of two active hubs and do not program the channels in pixelnet.  I dedicate the first 512 channels to DMX even though I am only running about 180.  I start my pixelnet programming at 513.  I use a passive hub on my pixel tree, but I could use an active hub and have a second TX coming out of the second active hub and dedicated the first 512 channels to DMX which programming wise would be channels 4097 - 4068 and then do all my pixel net programming from that hub to start at 4069.  Hopefully that is clearer than mud.

Not sure what conuses you, but if you point it out I will try to clarify. As for the response you posted I understand that an active hub outputs DMX, but why continue down that road if Pixelnet is the future? If PixelNet is the future at DLA will the current stuff be "upgraded" to work with PixelNet so that if I use all DLA stuff I have an all PixelNet environment.

The best example I can think of (right now) is I used to have computers that used a token ring network. Ethernet quickly overtook token ring and became the standard for networking. As that happened I did not create a network that did both (well for a little while I did) I upgraded the computers so they could "speak" ethernet.

So I know that I can run both, and I know that the active hub can split out a bock of DMX (and probably always should for people that use a mix of equipment), but if PixelNet is the future here at DLA will all DLA devices eventually support PixelNet (I don't know how hard that would be...just a firmware upgrade?)?

[n1ist]

Pixelnet may be the future for a lot of what we do, but there are still places where you will want to use DMX.  You may have existing DMX lights and dimmers, or want to use commercial devices (floods, moving heads, foggers) that are DMX-based.
/mike

[Night Owl]

I'm assuming the existing equipment could be upgraded to Pixelnet, but should it?  It might be a firmware upgrade to us, but I imagine it is a ton of work for RJ to develop that software.  Also, I lean toward the "if it's not broke, don't fix it" mindset.    

[tbone321]

Which is one of the primary reasons for the converter.  The other IMHO, would be to make multiple versions of firmware both unnecessary and unneeded which would save time that could be used for advanced development and much less confusion on which firmware is for what.

[tbone321]

There is one user working on a DMX converter for 1 universe. Doing a multiuniverse converter takes us backwards from the direction I am going so there is no plans to support that at this time. If youre staying all dmx it makes more sense to stay dmx not to convert back and forth.

RJ

I'm not sure if supporting multiple universes is really going backwards.  What I see it as is cost savings.  In reality, it would probably cost LESS to support 4 universes than it does to support one.  In a single DMX universe system, you would need 8 jumpers or a 2 pole 4 position rotary switch to select which Pixelnet universe as well as 8 more jumpers to select which of the 8 segments you want it to convert.  Making it a 4 DMX universe unit would eliminate all but one of the DMX universe jumpers which would be used to select either the lower or upper 4 DMX universes.  In this case, the converter would have the same output as a USB Dongle flashed for Pixelnet.  This would also save people money if they need more than one DMX universe since the converter supports 4 of them.  This would also capitalize on the equipment that has already been developed for Pixelnet on the USB dongle as far as signal distribution.  I don't really see how that would be going backwards, especially if it would save the users money on both the cost of the board and the number needed for their displays.

[dpitts]

I'm not sure if supporting multiple universes is really going backwards.  What I see it as is cost savings.  In reality, it would probably cost LESS to support 4 universes than it does to support one.  In a single DMX universe system, you would need 8 jumpers or a 2 pole 4 position rotary switch to select which Pixelnet universe as well as 8 more jumpers to select which of the 8 segments you want it to convert.  Making it a 4 DMX universe unit would eliminate all but one of the DMX universe jumpers which would be used to select either the lower or upper 4 DMX universes.  In this case, the converter would have the same output as a USB Dongle flashed for Pixelnet.  This would also save people money if they need more than one DMX universe since the converter supports 4 of them.  This would also capitalize on the equipment that has already been developed for Pixelnet on the USB dongle as far as signal distribution.  I don't really see how that would be going backwards, especially if it would save the users money on both the cost of the board and the number needed for their displays.

Making a DMX converter go from 1 to 4 universes is more than just the pins to select universes and such. You need a processor that has five serial ports and fast enough to receive Pixelnet @1Mbps and output to four DMX outputs @250Kbps. I tall order for most economical processors.

I would be willing to make a Pixelnet to 8 DMX output converter if I can get approval and there is enough interest. I would use two surface mount PICS I used in the Pixelnet controller.  Or just a 4 output version with a single PIC.

[twooly]

I would be interested, a thing that would be awesome would be pixelnet back to e131 for use with other devices out there.

[Voltorb]

The great thing about this hobby is we all just want to have fun, and innovation brought us to where we are today.  It's cool that RJ has developed the hardware platform for us to build on.  It really is his choice for the direction he wants to take the platform, but there will likely be people like me that want more, and will figure out how to get it done.  I love this stuff!