New Idea, need feedback

[plasmadrive]

Would there be any interest in  small device that you can store small macros in, would accept the LOR or DMX input to trigger one of the macros.. output to WS2811. 

 

The idea would be so you don't have to dive into pixels full blown.  You could have several of these devices on things like star bursts or wagon wheels or whatever.. the macro would be stored on board and you trigger it via your network or even perhaps one of several switch inputs.  It would not take a bunch of bandwidth of course since it would house your macros.

 

They would be low cost, hold several macros.. small in size..  weatherproof... accept 5-12vdc input. 

 

Any thoughts?  We have such a device that can be make to work for this purpose with a few tweaks... wonder if it is worth the effort.

 

[Ken Benedict]

Holidaycoro.com has a device in the works: http://www.holidaycoro.com/DMX-to-SPI-Pixel-Decoder-Controller-p/610.htm

 

Although it's not LOR compatible, it has DMX input and 30+ macros already setup to drive 2811 pixels.

 

And an affordable price.

 

 

There's supposed to be a small circuit board from J1sys.com, called the uDCG-P2 that may also do the job, but it's still in development.

 

See: http://auschristmaslighting.com/forums/index.php/topic,3657.0.html

 

And:

 

 

I suggested to both J1sys, Sandevices  and LOR last year that there might be a good market for a 2811 pixel controller of 512 channels that would workon a LOR network, but nothing positive came from it.

 

Looks like the Holidaycoro unit comes closest.

Edited January 25, 2013 by Ken Benedict

[plasmadrive]

Saw that unit out of China.. Mine would hold your own macros, but honestly the coro one looks like it covers most of the common ones..

 

Thanks for the input.

[Orville]

I'd say there's always room for more items that will work with LOR products.  And if one only needed a small amount of Macros and the price was less than those that may offer more space, then I'd say go for it.  Bigger isn't always better, depsite what some "advertisements" I've seen lately say.

 

But just my opinion, after all you did ask.

[Ken Benedict]

I agree and emphasize that I need equipment WITHOUT E1.31 protocol for almost all of my projects, because I can't be running a computer for a commercial display; it's gotta be an MP3 Director, Mini-Director or iDMX1000.

 

Home displays are fine with a dedicated computer that has a network jack on it.

 

LOR has been strangely quiet in the hardware arena for the last year, only announcing CC devices or a faster MP3 Director card.

There was talk last year of a smaller, cheaper DMX unit, but it's not out yet.

 

I'd LOVE to see a LOR to 2811 controller sometime this year.

[scubado]

There's a thread on the DIYC forum that this would be a good compliment to the project.

http://doityourselfchristmas.com/forums/showthread.php?24436-Snowfall-tube-based-on-WS2811

[dmoore]

Saw that unit out of China.. Mine would hold your own macros, but honestly the coro one looks like it covers most of the common ones..

 

Thanks for the input.

 

Actually the LOR CCR already does pre-programmed macros.  Here is my reasoning behind why you don't see this:

 

* Macros were more of a requirement back when you had sequencing applications like LOR S2 that didn't easily handle complex sequencing like chases and color rolls, thus it was easier to "call" a macro to do this

* You can't simulate the macro in your sequence test playback, thus it's hard to "imagine" what the macro would look like

* You need to have a sequencing application to create the macro and the only one that I'm aware of (other than DMX recorder devices) and the only one that comes close is LOR S3 where you can load completed sequences (not macros) into the controller for stand alone playback

* The sequencing software in the last several years has come a LONG way as have the network transports - so even the issue of "saving" bandwidth on a network (as was the case with thousands of channels and only 3 LOR networks in the past) is no longer an issue

 

David

[dmoore]

I agree and emphasize that I need equipment WITHOUT E1.31 protocol for almost all of my projects, because I can't be running a computer for a commercial display; it's gotta be an MP3 Director, Mini-Director or iDMX1000.

 

Home displays are fine with a dedicated computer that has a network jack on it.

 

LOR has been strangely quiet in the hardware arena for the last year, only announcing CC devices or a faster MP3 Director card.

There was talk last year of a smaller, cheaper DMX unit, but it's not out yet.

 

I'd LOVE to see a LOR to 2811 controller sometime this year.

 

 

Why can't you use a PC?  If you can use a director style device, I can't imagine why a netbook of the same or nearly same size would not work as a solution. 

 

What is the advantage of a LOR to 2811 pixel controller over one of the many DMX to 2811 (and more) controllers already on the market?

[Ken Benedict]

Why can't you use a PC?  If you can use a director style device, I can't imagine why a netbook of the same or nearly same size would not work as a solution. 

 

What is the advantage of a LOR to 2811 pixel controller over one of the many DMX to 2811 (and more) controllers already on the market?

 

It's a matter of convenience and skill level. I do displays for state fair projects that don't always have a person who is PC literate; they want a one-switch-wonder that just runs with the flip of a switch and turns off the same way. Much more reliable than a laptop or PC. And doesn't take up as much room as a laptop. And can handle a trip cross country to another state fair without damage or theft. They don't have the time or skill to carefully pack a laptop for the trip or debug it if there's setup problems.

 

A LOR to 2811 pixel controller would be a simple plugin to a LOR Director card, where a DMX pixel controller would require the iDMX1000 to operate on the LOR network. On an animation-only project (without sound), I can load the sequence into the RAM of the iDMX1000 and it would run a universe of the DMX devices, including a DMX pixel controller, just fine. And there are some displays that I use them that way. But most displays I design use sound and animation both.