CCR Arches for Next Year

[steve gibbons]

This is my 5^th year with LOR. (50,000 lights – 240 channels) I rarely post, but also rarely miss a day lurking on the forums.

For next year, I’m adding four 32’ arches across my driveway. I’ve done some research and have decided to go with CCRs. I upgraded to S3 with Superstar and I’ve started poking around learning it.

I have 2 options that I see and need your advice on.

#1, I use 2 complete CCRS per arch.

#2, I use 1 complete CCR with 1 additional ribbon and power supply soldered to it.

Here’s what I see as the pros and cons of each.

#1 provides more flexibility if I decide to use the CCRS anytime other than Christmas. However this option costs $70 more per arch and each of the arches are two fixtures to program.

#2 locks in the ribbons to being 32’ long, but it is cheaper and the entre ribbon is one item to program.

I understand that if I solder them together, each controllable segment doubles in length. I don’t think this is a huge deal, but I am open to feedback.

I’m leaning toward option #2 but wanted to get the opinion of those of you with experience with CCRs.

Thanks in advance for you advice.

Steve

[bretk]

Steve, ive got some 8 foot ccr arches now. I would go with #2, as the pixel resolution for a 32 foot arh would be plenty even if it were 2 segments or 6 lights instead of 3 lights.

[amcdonald307]

With option #1, more controllers puts more drain on your network, and you're talking about adding 8 CCR. With your other channels you will definitely be having to add more USB ports to support that
Option #2, you'll still be adding 4, but that is only half as much! (Yeah, I'm good at math). You might still end up adding another port, but it may be a consideration in your make-or-break point.

I had 4 CCR this year and chose to run them at 25px resolution instead of 50, just to make them easier to program. For 16ft arches each, I was plenty pleased with the "double resolution" of 6 lights opposed to 3.

So, if you couldn't make sense of all that, I vote option #2, not only for the cost saving, but the ease of programming and network strain relief.