Shared Addresses

[Owen Holman]

I'm told this won't work but can someone explain the technical reason why.

I have a sequence written for a mini-tree that uses a single 16 channel controller; imagine 4 colors, 4 channels per color.

Now I want to add 3 more identical mini-trees with the exact same sequence, , but why couldn't I set the address on the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th, controller the same as the 1st. This way the 2nd and subsequent controller would ”mirror" the main controller?

(I realize that you can copy the channels in the sequencer program to an new group and modify the address of each one, but this seems like a waste of sequence bandwidth)

I would think that all controllers “receive and react" to commands that contain their own address, regardless of how many controllers in the chain contain the same address?

Owen

Shreveport, LA

[Denny]

I can't give you an answer one way or the other as far as mirroring controllers, but why don't you just run additional extension cords between trees, or make your own cords with four outlets spaced the necessary distance? Extension cords are much cheaper than using four controllers if you want the trees to mirror each other all the time.

[evan.a]

forget sharing the address. what you need is 3 way splitters. just plug them in order. mini tree 1 blue is mini 5 blue and so on. if your going to have 4 minis doing the same thing as 5 thru 8 it'll save you from adding a second controler.

[Owen Holman]

Thanks, I never considered that angle, guess 16 extensions cords would be a huge amount less than one 16ch controller.

Owen

[Steve Constantino]

I would like a reason too why you can't set the same address on one or more controllers. In the DMX world we do it all the time.

I think it is a better idea to use controllers rather than extension cords and splitters. Even if it cost more. It will be a much cleaner setup and it will look more professional.

Don't get me wrong I use lot's of cords and custom multi conductor cables. I use DMX dimmers to solve this problem.You can set as many as you want to the same address.

Steve

[cmoore60]

I agree with Steve.

I think the main reason it is said you "can't" is because of not realizing/knowing the consequences. If you KNOW your desired result and do it that is different.

I also agree with the cost issues and using cords. However, if you have the controllers dedicated to the trees at this stage of the game there is nothing saying in the future you would not be able to assign seperate addresses and program accordingly.

Chuck

[Rick Hughes]

I must be missing something.

I regularly have more than one controller using the same controller ID for exactly the reason stated ... you want to do exactly the same thing on both controllers. The reason I did it is because I didn't want 16 extension cords crossing a sidewalk - so one controller on each side, but with the same unit ID.

No problems, and it's much easier on the sequencing side.

[Steve Constantino]

Rick

Sounds good. That is what I do too. I'm not sure but I think some people where having problems with controllers on the same ID. I am not sure what they are, I have not tried my self. But if it works for you thats good to know. I don't see why it wouldn't work.

Steve

[rwertz]

I believe the next communication protocol will be bidirectional. In that situation multiple devices would answer at the same time if they had the same address. That could result in various issues from bad data being received to possibly damaged hardware.

If the documentation states not to do this, I personally wouldn’t do it. (I have no clue if it does say this)

[DaveK]

I considered having two controllers with the same address for my two megatrees that are 40’ apart. But rather than putting them on the same address, why not put the controllers on separate addresses and just copy the sequencing information to the new channels. This also give you the option of having the trees ‘spinning’ in opposite directions, or being different colors and different times.

[Clark B]

Rick, thanks for passing on your experience. I have been wanting to know about duplicate IDs, because I am running 1000W PAR64s and wanted to spread the current draw across mutiple controllers, but have the PARs doing the same actions.

Clark

[zman]

I finally read Rick's reply on this. Yes you can have identical controller ID's I did last year and plan on increasing that plan this year and I will be controlling my neighbors yard too doing just that. I did not want extension cords running across our little private road, so one ELL and 3 controllers will sit across the street.

[Dale W]

If you have to purchase 16 extension cords at $15 each, you have equaled the cost of a 16PC controller.

I had a problem last year and it was actually cheaper to get another controller than it was to purchase 16 75' extension cords.

food for thought

[Guest wbottomley]

Good Point Dale.

[bhays]

This does raise a question that would be nice to have answered. Can two controllers share the same address. Like fixtures in the dmx world where they can share the address so long as you want them to do the same thing.

[Guest wbottomley]

bhays wrote:

This does raise a question that would be nice to have answered. Can two controllers share the same address. Like fixtures in the dmx world where they can share the address so long as you want them to do the same thing.

I agree!

I don't why it couldn't work.

Of course that's my point of view which sometimes it sounds like it's coming from Mars.

[zman]

bhays wrote:

This does raise a question that would be nice to have answered. Can two controllers share the same address. Like fixtures in the dmx world where they can share the address so long as you want them to do the same thing.

This thread while not completely straight forward is just about this question. Yes this CAN be done, no problems. In the DMX world, they call this being a Slave, I guess it would be considered the same in LOR as well.

[bhays]

zman wrote:

bhays wrote:

This does raise a question that would be nice to have answered. Can two controllers share the same address. Like fixtures in the dmx world where they can share the address so long as you want them to do the same thing.

This thread while not completely straight forward is just about this question. Yes this CAN be done, no problems. In the DMX world, they call this being a Slave, I guess it would be considered the same in LOR as well.

Has it been tried and verified to work? I thought the LOR protocol was bidirectional whereas dmx isf unidirectional. I have definitely been wrong before, however.

[Steve Constantino]

I have not tried to use the same ID yet, but Rick Hughes has and he stated that it works for him.

Steve

[zman]

I did it last year as well.