Node Types ?

[scott_aus]

Hi,

Is it just the nodes linked in the wiki that will work with SSC's or is it any string with 1804 chip?

I wanted to get some nodes like the normal strings but with the square backing on it so they sit flat on whatever surface I am mounting them on.

Thanks, Scott

[keitha43]

Only the ones in the WIKI are tested and guaranteed to work. The ones in this thread You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login are said to be able to be manufactued with 1804 chips upon request to Ray. I am waiting on a sample string with the default chip to test with my modded v3 SSC's to see if they will work with it.

[curtbl]

Keith, I was going to ask in the other thread about why everyone is trying to get the WS's to work if Ray will make the same with the 1804's, and found your post....Did you get a version of this with the 1804 chipset?  I really like the form factor and the ability to add the other lens pieces, but concerned that 1804 may not be 1804. Your thoughts?  Seems it would be easier than trying to get the SSC's to work with a non approved chip.
Thanks
Curt

[keitha43]

No. The test strands he had were only ws2811. Somebody would have to order some tm1804's from Ray to verify compatibility.

Sent from my Thunderbolt using Tapatalk 2.

[RJ]

The WS2811 is a little cheaper sometimes, and it is useable if setup correctly. It is like the 1804 in that it has different communication speeds and needs to be set to the correct one. I was sent a string from ray a while back of WS2811 and they worked on SSC V4, SSC v3, and Zeus so not sure the ones someone got that did not work on, but I think it was setup to a different com speed is my guess.


RJ

[Steve Gase]

The WS2811 is a little cheaper sometimes, and it is useable if setup correctly. It is like the 1804 in that it has different communication speeds and needs to be set to the correct one. I was sent a string from ray a while back of WS2811 and they worked on SSC V4, SSC v3, and Zeus so not sure the ones someone got that did not work on, but I think it was setup to a different com speed is my guess.


RJ

Is com speed adjustable on a string?  Wouldn't com speed be defined by the controller? (SSC?)

[rrowan]

The WS2811 is a little cheaper sometimes, and it is useable if setup correctly. It is like the 1804 in that it has different communication speeds and needs to be set to the correct one. I was sent a string from ray a while back of WS2811 and they worked on SSC V4, SSC v3, and Zeus so not sure the ones someone got that did not work on, but I think it was setup to a different com speed is my guess.


RJ

Is com speed adjustable on a string?  Wouldn't com speed be defined by the controller? (SSC?)

Nope this is the speed of the pic on the pixel and set by the factory during assembly.

Rick R.

[JonB256]

I believe that may be one of the advantages of the 4 wire strings - the clock is separate from the data. Now, having never used a 4-wire pixel, that may only be half correct, but it could allow them more leeway for clock speeds.

[Steve Gase]

The WS2811 is a little cheaper sometimes, and it is useable if setup correctly. It is like the 1804 in that it has different communication speeds and needs to be set to the correct one. I was sent a string from ray a while back of WS2811 and they worked on SSC V4, SSC v3, and Zeus so not sure the ones someone got that did not work on, but I think it was setup to a different com speed is my guess.


RJ

Is com speed adjustable on a string?  Wouldn't com speed be defined by the controller? (SSC?)

Nope this is the speed of the pic on the pixel and set by the factory during assembly.

Rick R.

so, a firmware change would be needed to adjust the clock speed of the pixel data coming out of the ssc in order to support more ws2811 strings...

[jnealand]

I am always puzzled by why we seem to continually look at unsupported devices.  What is wrong with using the ones in the wiki?  Saving a dollar or two or three does not make sense to me when I look at the total cost of my display investment and I don't need the hassles of trying to make the non supported stuff work.  I am not talking about totally new stuff, but I just don't see the rationale for using WS2811 vs using the 180x stuff.  Can someone explain this to me.

[keitha43]

Actually the reason I was interested was the design of the node itself. Looks to be more waterproof and easier to mount without worrying about possibly spreading the wires too much and easier mounting of covers over the led and mounting the node to various materials. The ws2811 seems to be a more popular chip type now and has more variety of shaped nodes. And the cost was a little cheaper. However after discovering here that even the TM1804 chips have more than 1 speed as well, I wouldn't place an order for those strands either until someone has verified they work with our SSC's v3 or v4.

[zwiller]

I think it is a natural evolution to push the boundaries, but I think the rage right now about the 2811 is the new strand that is out.  IP68, flexible mounting options, great cover options, waterproof connectors built in.  Might be a game changer and a standard string for the future.  The 100ct mini of RGB maybe... 

Once enough of the V4 have made into the hands of 2811 users we'll know for sure if the the 2811 is officially supported.  I bet it  works.  FYI I have seen posts reporting Ray's actual quotes are a bit higher for the 2811 than posted online, so the pricing is very much in line with the 1804. 

I am very interested to find out if the flat back injection molded 1804 nodes with conformal coated are good enough for us. 

[keitha43]

With this particular strand of ws2811, neither the v4 or v3 SSC worked with it.

[Steve Gase]

I am always puzzled by why we seem to continually look at unsupported devices.  What is wrong with using the ones in the wiki?  Saving a dollar or two or three does not make sense to me when I look at the total cost of my display investment and I don't need the hassles of trying to make the non supported stuff work.  I am not talking about totally new stuff, but I just don't see the rationale for using WS2811 vs using the 180x stuff.  Can someone explain this to me.

IMO, the problem with the smart strings in the wiki was the water-proofedness of the pixels.  The IP66 gave them a bad name, but even the IP68 pixels are not error free when tension is applied.


The new FirePix string that recently came out are well-designed, the injection-molded fixture, the ability to mount them and have them point outwards to get better effects, and many various other attributes made these lights attractive.


The initial offering for these Technicolor / FirePix lights use WS2811 -- i believe that decision was based on reducing cost.


For some people, the WS2811 lights are more about cost, and for others it is about the ability to select from more shapes.




I don't know if other vendors will offer the option, but getting the TM1804 chip instead of the WS2811 in the technicolor/firepix strings from Ray Wu is something that seals the deal for me.


I am waiting on a order for firepix strings with TM1804 -- I don't trust the WS2811 to make it worth a significant investment.  But I also ordered a couple short WS2811 strings that I will experiment with.  I hope to report back with my results for each -- SOON.

[tbone321]

Are you ordering these strings from Ray?