msturtz Posted August 28, 2011 Share Posted August 28, 2011 Hi all--The first question is, has anybody used the GE Color Effects strands with LOR? I would assume this would involve cutting off the inline controller, and connecting the string to a new controller that can be addressed by LOR, or DMX (and then by LOR)? People over at doityourselfchristmas (et al) have already reverse-engineered the protocol on the strand,More generally, is the LOR wire protocol "open", or is one limited to using DMX?-Matt- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Benedict Posted August 29, 2011 Share Posted August 29, 2011 Why not make a DMX interface for the GE Color Effects strings? Put me on the list when that happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mschell Posted August 29, 2011 Share Posted August 29, 2011 There are several DMX-> GE controllers that have been developed over on DIYC. Jim St John's E680/681 is just such one of those...To the original poster, the GE pixels have their own protocol - there's not an LOR controller that can drive them directly that's available today. In the future - who knows?(DIYC = doityourselfchristmas.com) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msturtz Posted August 29, 2011 Author Share Posted August 29, 2011 To the original poster, the GE pixels have their own protocol - there's not an LOR controller that can drive them directly that's available today. In the future - who knows?Aware of that... I haven't been doing LOR that long (built my first two controller kits last year around this time -- sure wish they'd get on with the summer sale so I can pick up some more, but that's for another thread). I am, however, an IT guy for a living, not to mention a ham, and have fooled around a bit with the Arduino platform.I have a PM into Jim on DIYC, he replied saying that his board uses E1.31 (DMX over ethernet). His website is here: http://www.sandevices.com. He says he has a board coming that converts wired-DMX into E1.31 -- that should, I would think, allow the GE pixels to work from LOR. Who knows though...Has anybody reverse-engineered the LOR wire protocol? I can't imagine it'd be that tough to do -- snoop the RS485 line, or even the RS232 line... However, if LOR will control DMX, maybe nobody cares enough.(updated second paragraph with further info I got back from Jim via email) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Posted August 29, 2011 Share Posted August 29, 2011 msturtz wrote:Has anybody reverse-engineered the LOR wire protocol?D-Light must have reversed-engineered it to create the Firefly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gizmomkr Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 Im also an "I.T. guy" - played with Parallax and Arduino.There is a LOR plugin floating around for Vixen, and another one for Windows Media Player. Im sure its REALLY CLOSE to standard DMX, but I really dont want to know.Whatever IT is has been building a following, and feeding the famlies of LOR. Its a closed protocol, and I'm just happy to have native DMX support coming (so I hear anyway)I'll add that I've been playing with some RGB Pixels. LPD6803 and WS2801 are both easy to convert to DMX, and I hope to use several WS2801 pixel strings this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msturtz Posted August 30, 2011 Author Share Posted August 30, 2011 gizmomkr wrote: I'll add that I've been playing with some RGB Pixels. LPD6803 and WS2801 are both easy to convert to DMX, and I hope to use several WS2801 pixel strings this year.Have you tried out the Color Effects? Know offhand how to get them working in LOR (or DMX, which LOR can command)?Over on DIYC, I found a gent, Jim from sandevices.com, who has a board that will drive the Color Effects with E1.31 -- DMX over Etherner. But LOR doesn't know anything about E1.31... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gizmomkr Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 If Jim from sandevices.com can drive it with E1.31, That should be fine. I THINK S3 is rumored to support e1.31.There are devices to go convert between E1.31 and regular DMX, so you could go that route. But I'd probably just try and wait for S3.I did look at the info on the protocol. I'm not that well versed at the protocol layer, but it doesnt look like anything I have seen from the other two chips. There are a lot of pixel strings made overseas using the LPD6803 and WS2801 - both of these chips are easily converted to DMX, and LOR will talk DMX using the Idmx device now, and hopefully some other "usb / DMX dongle" soon.Check out http://www.usledsupply.com/shop/rgb-dmx-lpd6803-decoder.html and http://www.usledsupply.com/shop/12v-rgb-digital-module-6803-round-26in.htmlAdafruit also has pixel stringshttp://www.adafruit.com/products/322I prefer the above items as they dont require any hacking, and are the same price or cheaper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msturtz Posted August 31, 2011 Author Share Posted August 31, 2011 Jeff Millard wrote: Open discussions about finding a way to decode that intellectual property, on a web forum owned and maintained by LOR also seems to fall in that same "counter productive" catagory. While the owner's good nature will allow said discussions, I think you will find that a majority... if not all... of the forum's membership will rabidly defend this company's well being. Having said all of this, there are forums dedicated to DIY where that sort of discussion is the norm. The fact that Vixen has a plug-in capable of controlling LOR products is proof of that. I, for one, wish the discussion of the possible theft of the LOR communications protocol would not be brought up here. It's a bit of a slap in the face to the guy who created it and provides all these fantastic products and services to the lighting community.You're right, I guess that was bad form -- although you'll note that my original question was "is it 'open'", generally meaning, do they consider it to be closed, company-confidential intellectual property (and perhapps they're encrypting or obfuscating the wire protocol, I don't know). It could be that while it isn't an open standard, they don't mind giving away the details of the protocol in the spirit of encouraging the use of their products (after all, they do make money on software). I appologize for sounding like I wanted to steal their product, because that wasn't and isn't my intent -- I'm waiting for the summer sale to expand my equipment inventory. -Matt- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CKSedg Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 Jeff Millard wrote: msturtz wrote: ...I appologize for sounding like I wanted to steal their product, because that wasn't and isn't my intent -- I'm waiting for the summer sale to expand my equipment inventory...Thank you for the response and clarification... I was only stating my opinion. I didn't intend to accuse you or anyone of stealing. I even pointed out to admin that I made that post, and told them if they thought it was out of line to delete it and I'd drop the subject. As I stated earlier, their good nature would allow the discussion even if I thought it was a bad idea. My only reason for posting... was to give people something to think about before it grew legs.That doesn't mean a thing. I'm not the thought police here nor do I have the right to say what's being discussed is right or wrong. But I am one of the "rabid" members of this forum I spoke of... it's not always a good thing for my online social standing, but that issue won't stop me from passing my 2 cents in regarding what I believe is right or wrong...Thanks again...JeffJeff, I'm right behind you on this. I'm sure many others on this forum agree, also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
therealbigjim Posted September 2, 2011 Share Posted September 2, 2011 LOR is a top notch company and I use and love the software and controllers. But....some of the equipment is expensive and out of reach for some. The intent is not to steal but to use some other neat devices with LOR's innovative and easy to use products. There is a lot of new stuff floating around and some of the DIY products make it to market (use, kit etc….) quickly because they are not for professional use and are not UL listed. LOR users have to wait a bit for stuff because (I think) they want to produce a product that they can stand behind and they will make a living selling.People (including me) want the next big thing for their display. The people that go all out on their displays will always be looking to cut costs to expand, upgrade or just fit it into a tight budget.Also some people just gotta take stuff apart and see how it works. I have destroyed countless toys, bicycles, lawnmowers, cars, and electronic things just cause I wanted to “fix” them or improve them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
khawes Posted September 2, 2011 Share Posted September 2, 2011 The biggest difficulty to open sourcing the LOR protocol is that you get locked in to it. If it;s proprietary, LOR is free to change it any time with very little down stream repercussions aside from forcing a firmware update along with the Show/Sequencing software update.Imagine the uproar if the protocol changed (and it was not backward comparable) from the community as lights form another vendor became useless until that vendor updated the firmware (if they chose to at all). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim st john Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 There is another option for integrating RGB pixels with LOR displays. It's not cheap, but you can use separate lighting control program to drive the pixels, such as MAdrix, then assign a handful of LOR DMX channels (IDMX-1000) to remote-control the Madrix software, telling it when to activate the different display patterns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts