bob_moody Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 Let me see if I can lay this out. I have a laptop in the office that runs my show. Until this year it has all been LOR. I have an RJ45 plate in the wall which goes out to another RJ45 plate under the porch. This is how I get my connection from the laptop to the LOR conttrollers.This year I have added one element group running E1.31 DMX. 8 mini North Poles using the HolidayCoro DMX controllers and RGB modules. I have a J1Sys ECG-D2 E1.31 to DMX bridge mounted in a box along with a power supply to power the D2 and inject power for the North Poles.Question is can I combine or split the LOR data and the E1.31 to run on the same cable from the wall plate in the office to the wall plate on the porch then split them out where LOR goes to LOR equipment, the E1.31 then goes to the D2 bridge for DMX?I'm pretty sure if I was on the DMX output side of the D2, I could do this. If I'm on target, LOR uses pins 3&4 and DMX uses pins 1&2. You could build a simple cable to carry the two. However, I am very much the novice on the E1.31 standard and I'm not sure what is on all the pins from the laptops Ethernet port to the E1.31 input of the D2.Any insight or suggestions would be appreciated. If it would be better, I can replace the two wall plates with duplex jacks and run one dedicated to LOR and one dedicated to 1.31Thanks for the helpBob..(I just got my D2 today.. set up information is less than stellar unless you are member of the Aussie Christmas forum, then with a little looking around you can find what you need... I'm still missing a few things on the setup but basically its making the DMX controllers go blinky/flashy... Wow ..I just hijacked my own thread ... go figure.. ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edvas69 Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 You could just run your LOR controllers in DMX instead and is what i do, i have my LOR controllers on the same network as my DMX controllersFor info on how to do this then refer to the presentation I did on running LOR controllers in DMXhttp://auschristmaslighting.com/forums/index.php/topic,1139.msg9601.html#msg9601 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-klb- Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 LOR uses pairs 3,6 & 4,5. 100Mbit Ethernet (carrying E1.31 or not) uses pairs 1,2 and 3,6. You could cable up adapters to leave LOR on its standard pins, and put the Ethernet on 1,2 & 7,8. The thing is that if you mess it up, you can kill the Ethernet port on the computer or the DMX bridge. They don't tend to handle the LOR 10V accessory power at all well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob_moody Posted November 14, 2012 Author Share Posted November 14, 2012 I suppose if I would have thought about my question BEFORE I asked it...... sheesh..E1.31 (DMX over Ethernet) would use the same transmission pairs for communications from the PC to the DMX Bridge as any other Ethernet connection....If this is in fact the case, then pins 1,2,3 and 6 are tied up in E1.31 transmission so LOR couldnt ride along (assuming LOR uses pins 3 & 4 natively)...I suppose you could move the LOR data to pins 7 & 8 (custom adaptor), carry them out to the outside wall plate then create a special cable to put 7&8 back on a connector for LOR (pins 3&4) and send the rest of the data (pins 1,2,3 and 6) on to the E1.31 bridge (seperate cable)...I think I need a napThanks Eddy and KLB.. I will tackle this in the morning ..I appreciate the replies... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob_moody Posted November 14, 2012 Author Share Posted November 14, 2012 Okay, I have to play both ends against the middle on this one.Eddy: I watched the presentation (thank you) and I noticed that all the connections originated from a DMX Bridge/Dongle. I have the J1Sys ECG-D2 bridge. If I understand correctly, I dont need a LOR dongle (like I thought..except to set the Unit address) which would be a good thing for me since the LOR dongle I have is the old style Serial to RJ45 (RS485). Again, if I understand.. the only thing I lose is the hardware shimmer and twinkle (which I dont use a lot of). I could test all of this tonight out in the shop...KLB: I understand the idea of the special cable, and its very dooable. Question... is the 9V power on the 3,6 pair required if your not running any LOR accessories (only controllers)? This would make my assumption of 1,2,3,6 for E1.31 and 4,5 for LOR usable. However, I think we are saying "essentially" the same thing. I agree that if the 9V is required then most likely the SAFEST thing for me to do is run a second cable for E1.31 DMX along with the existing cable for LORComments? Suggestions?Bob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Fischer Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 Personally I'd just run another wire (which I did, and it was non-trivial). Eventually you're going to want to use gigabit ethernet outside (yes, it will eventually happen) and that uses all 4 pairs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edvas69 Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 You dont need a dongle because the ECG-D2 outputs DMX so effectively they do the same thing. What the presentation is about is how to hook and configure the channel start address with in a DMX universe, so regardless of how you get that DMX network be it with a D2, Enntec Pro or any other type of DMX controller (excluding the LOR dongle as its pin arragement is not to DMX standard), the network connection and the start addresses will be the same for all because its DMX. This is how i run my setup, I have one E1.31 network coming out of the computer connected to a switch that then distributes to the many E1.31 devices, two of those are ECG-DR4 controllers and I have my LOR controllers hooked up to the DMX networks that are generated by the DR4You are correct that you loose the hardware shimmer and twinkle and any other macro features used in LOR controllers that is specific to the LOR protocol when running in DMX.One other note is when running LOR controllers through a D2,D4 or DR4 DMX bridge is that you set the keep alive on because the data stream is not constant when there is no data required for that dmx universe, so what happens is the LOR controllers will revert back to looking for the LOR protocol if there is no data and when data starts to arrive there is short delay as the controller works out if its dmx or LOR mode it needs to run in. So by setting the keep alives on the D2 you then will always be sending data to that universe and the LOR controllers will always stay in DMX mode. For info on the correct keep alive settings and for the updated firmware that fixes this then refer to this thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob_moody Posted November 15, 2012 Author Share Posted November 15, 2012 (edited) Okay.. I built a quickie DMX to LOR cable and hooked it up ..The box I was using was set to address 6 and i set up DMX address 81,82,83 to map to channel 1,2,3Works like a charm right out of the box ... (I did go back in an set the KeepAlive parms after the fact... )I understand the issues in having to remap all the channels.. time consuming but not a deal breaker ..Being curious, I ran a sequence (DMX) using LOR shimmer on each channel, then ran LOR twinkle .. Huh .. it seems to be twinkling and shimmering to me ..So I connected back over to LOR and ran the same test set up as LOR ID 6, channel 1,2,3Ran the same twinkle and shimmer...I realize that I'm not the smartest monkey in the barrel .. but I really couldnt "see" the difference in LOR shimmer/twinkle vs DMX shimmer/twinkle..I'm sure there is .. but I didnt see it ..My DMX bridge is brand new .. got it yesterday .. my LOR boxes are a couple of years old at least .. I didnt even bother to look at the firmware version (yet) ..to me its just one of those things that make you go ... hmmmmmmmmmmm.. Edited November 15, 2012 by bob_moody Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-klb- Posted November 15, 2012 Share Posted November 15, 2012 Okay, I have to play both ends against the middle on this one.Eddy: I watched the presentation (thank you) and I noticed that all the connections originated from a DMX Bridge/Dongle. I have the J1Sys ECG-D2 bridge. If I understand correctly, I dont need a LOR dongle (like I thought..except to set the Unit address) which would be a good thing for me since the LOR dongle I have is the old style Serial to RJ45 (RS485). Again, if I understand.. the only thing I lose is the hardware shimmer and twinkle (which I dont use a lot of). I could test all of this tonight out in the shop...KLB: I understand the idea of the special cable, and its very dooable. Question... is the 9V power on the 3,6 pair required if your not running any LOR accessories (only controllers)? This would make my assumption of 1,2,3,6 for E1.31 and 4,5 for LOR usable. However, I think we are saying "essentially" the same thing. I agree that if the 9V is required then most likely the SAFEST thing for me to do is run a second cable for E1.31 DMX along with the existing cable for LORComments? Suggestions?BobIf you have the SC-485, it is powered by the 9V accessory power from the controller. It is not powered by the serial port. So you would need the 9V. You also need the ground for reliable RS-485, even if you did not need it for the power to the SC485. Real world, I would either run a second cable, and color code it differently at the jack, (try and avoid confusion) or I would use the LOR controllers in DMX mode, as one of the universes off the E1.31 to DMX bridge. I generally think the 1st method is a better solution, but either will work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob_moody Posted November 15, 2012 Author Share Posted November 15, 2012 KLB,Thank you so much for the reply ...Could I ask you to elaborate on your reason the 2 networks (LOR and DMX) are the better solution? I'm really being curious and not flippant. I want to know the who, what, when, where, why and how and if I can learn from others insight then I'm that much further ahead for not only myself but in the event that I can pass along some help one day.Bob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edvas69 Posted November 15, 2012 Share Posted November 15, 2012 Very interesting that the shimmer and twinkle are working in DMX mode, I wonder if LOR added this feature to S3 as I was made aware that this was one of the limitations, be it thats nearly 2 years ago.But personally for me I believe the one network from the computer is the cleanest solution in your situation as it leaves the already available network cable to be used for other network puposes for the other times of the year as you can keep it standard. In the end the LOR controllers run very well in DMX and I run 8 CCR controllers in DMX with no issues at all, so to me this is the best method when using LOR controllers mixed with DMX controllers and now seems even better that twinkle and shimmer appear to work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob_moody Posted November 15, 2012 Author Share Posted November 15, 2012 Eddy,I can create a short video and post it showing everyone what i am seeing. I just did a VERY QUICK .. three channel mod to one of my sequences to see the results of a sequence that I know had special effects in it .. and for the life of me, I cant see the difference... Also remeber I never looked to see what firmware version I have on my boards..My laptop is an old Dell Inspiron 1300 running XP, LOR is ver 3.8 and my J1Sys D2 is so new I can still smell the ink on the silkscreening on the case end caps ...Maybe between V3.8 and Ed's newest updates to the D2 ... it is working .. I'm pretty sure I'm not losing my marbles but that is still out for debate ..Bob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edvas69 Posted November 15, 2012 Share Posted November 15, 2012 I think what may have happened is with the native DMX support of LOR S3 then this supports shimmer and twinkle because its something that is between S3 and the LOR controllers. So if you used any other software other than LOR S3 then you wont have hardware shimmer and twinkle, but good to know that the native DMX output of LOR seems to support shimmer and twinkle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-klb- Posted November 15, 2012 Share Posted November 15, 2012 KLB,Thank you so much for the reply ...Could I ask you to elaborate on your reason the 2 networks (LOR and DMX) are the better solution? I'm really being curious and not flippant. I want to know the who, what, when, where, why and how and if I can learn from others insight then I'm that much further ahead for not only myself but in the event that I can pass along some help one day.BobWith two networks, you will most likely be running LOR at 56Kbps, rather than 256Kbps for DMX mode. This should make comunication more stable, and resistant to communication glitches. Though on DMX, any glitches should be shorter duration.Yes, shimmer and twinkle do work with S3 in DMX mode, in that your show PC must calculate every frame of the effect, and send it in the DMX frame update. In LOR mode, it just sends a command to have the channel do one or the other for the next x seconds. Basically the LOR protocol shifts computation of shimmer, twinkle, and fades from the PC to the controller. By running DMX, you pull all the computation back to your show PC, and make the quality of the effects dependent on the timely performance of the show PC. The other thing is that shimmer is right at the limits of what DMX can do. The speed will be tied to the DMX update rate that the PC can attain. When done from the controller, it is very predictable, as it is a firmware function.Also, if you have a LOR network, and have issues, you can always fire up the hardware utility while the show is not running, and interrogate all your controllers, and get an idea of reachability as cabled. With DMX mode, you have to go unplug the controller, power cycle it to get it to go back to LOR mode, and plug in locally to use the hardware utility. Also, with DMX, you can't use the hardware utility to turn on some channel while you go troubleshoot the wiring and lights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob_moody Posted November 15, 2012 Author Share Posted November 15, 2012 KLB,EXCELLENT explination.. thank you very much for the reply...Bob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeffl Posted November 15, 2012 Share Posted November 15, 2012 All DMX or two wires. I chose all DMX in hope that my sticking channels problem would go away. Twinkles and fades look good. Technically I'm sure there is a differences but nothing my guests will notice.I do miss the network search function. This sets LOR apart from the rest and "was" one of my favorite features. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmiller0113 Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 I'm currently running my LOR 16 channel controller via my SanDevices E682 and from what I can tell, all my LOR effects seem to be working fine. This is the only way I've ever used the LOR controller as I've never connected it via USB other than to set the Unit ID. I'm also using LOR S3 Advanced so that is likely the reason why.Now my question is, if I change over to another software for controlling my lights like Light Show Pro will I still have a way to do a DMX type of shimmer or twinkle with my LOR Controller even though I'm not using LOR S3? I ask this because I have a lot of twinkle and shimmer as part of my show sequences and may need to switch to Light Show Pro for some additional feature flexibility.Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eldoradoboy Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 when running DMX... think of it like a "video".. all your channels are ALWAYS sent data ALL the time.. even if that channel is OFF it is still told to be off.. so in DMX the network effectiveness is measured in a "frame rate" or how many times per second was the DMX data sent to ALL channels.. the reason a DMX "universe" is only 512 channels is that DMX originally ONLY ran on RS485 and 512 channels was the MAX you could run and achieve a decent refresh rate...in DMX shimmer and twinkle are handled on the host computer.. technically ANY software CAN do shimmer and twinkle.. you could even build the effects in your LOR sequence grid esp if you are sequencing down to .1 or .05 seconds... watch what happens if you take a sequence and set intensity to 100 for every other box in the grid (set at .1 or .05) and play it.. you will see a nice shimmer type effect... think of DMX where its nothing more than setting intensities... and it sends that intensity level for ALL lights ALL the time.. the LOR protocol sends only the changes.. shimmer and twinkle are effects that are built into the controllers and the LOR protocol recognizes them as such.. thus why in LOR mode why you can unplug the control cable and your shimmer still works.....LOR protocol is also open to overloading very easily when sequencing very tight shows (grids to .05 seconds) with LOTS of changes each timeline.. and / or using large numbers RGB channels.... each change in your grid constitutes a command sent by LOR to the network... DMX is immune to this as it is limited to only 512 channels and simple intensity commands... E1.31 over ethernet allows DMX to handle MANY more channels as we have 100 MEG to work with in bandwidth instead of 56k (typical DMX baud rate )...I created several different shimmer and twinke type effects in MADRIX and they work beautiful over DMX.-Christopher 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeffl Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 I'm thrilled so far. My show has been rock solid under E1.31. The beauty is so far for my needs I have been able to stay with S3 which brings me a lot of comfort in stability. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob_moody Posted December 4, 2012 Author Share Posted December 4, 2012 A little off topic, but since I started the thread ... I keep seeing Madrix .. I have looked at Madrix .. and then I see the PRICE TAG on Madrix ..I'm I missing something here?I'm wondering if Christopher is a lighting professional and one of the benefits is access to this software ...WOWSERS ..Tell me what it does so much better than anything else available to us now...Bob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now