Any correlation to sequencing and wiring up an RGB tree?

[ezimnow]

Maybe reading to much into things but want  to be sure before I go ahead and sequence everything that I have all my ducks in a row.

 

 

12 Leg tree with WS2811 18ga 50cnt 12V  square pixels

I want to set this up as 4 universes with 450 pixels per universe...so 3 Legs per universe. When I wire this up I want to run a 1-3 splitter "Y" type Waterproof Connector

from ea of the 4 channels I will use on my controller to the bottom of each leg.  I'll also have to run PI as I think I can only run up to 130 pixels before I start to lose some color?

 

http://connectorllt.en.alibaba.com/product/1668235294-215643622/4_pins_Y_type_Waterproof_Connector_1_to_3_splitter_connector.html

 

Does it make a difference how I sequnce in Nutcracker or SS because I am running all the legs from the bottom up? What is the correalation to sequencing and how you run your pixels? My tree will be a 180 12 leg tree. I see that some people are running one leg up and one leg down but I assume This to mean they are ruunning a 360 tree?

 

Just need the clarification....thanks

 

EZ

 

 

[Paul R]

I don't think you can do that configuration with the splitter, if I am understanding what you are saying. It is not so much a matter of sequencing as to the configuration and addressing of the pixels from the hardware.

 

My understanding is that all pixels plugged into a single port on your controller must be serially linked end to end...in other words no splitter. That is because the data stream coming out of the controller assumes the first pixel it hits is the first address configured for that port. If the signal is split after the controller, I think it will treat the first pixel in each of the three strings as the same address. OK if you want each of the three strings to do exactly the same thing, but I don't think that is what you are wanting. Also not sure if you can split the signal without weakening it or corrupting it.

 

For what you are trying to do, I would have the first string go one direction (say, bottom to top), next string plugged into the end of the first and running top to bottom, then third string plugged into the end of the second and rubbing botton to top again. You would configure the controller port to have 150 pixels running from channels 1- 450 on the desired universe. The only controller I am familiar with (I'm pretty new to this) is the E682, and I know you can set up this configuration using the zigzag configuration. This allows you to virtually reverse the one string you have going the opposite direction to appear to your sequencer as if all three sets of 50 are running the same direction. Other controllers probably have something similar. As you said, you would probably need PI for the 150 pixel distance...

 

Remember that all of the smarts for addressing is at the controller. Your controller configuration basically sets the address of the first pixel attached to that port, and how many pixels follow it. The pixel strings work by the first pixel to get the signal taking the first bit of data (3 RGB channels), stripping it off and using it, then passing the rest of the data down the line to the next pixel, where it strips off its three channels and so on. Splitters are used between the computer and the pixel controllers (for E.131), not between the controllers and the pixels.

 

-Paul

[ezimnow]

Ok Paul so what your saying is running Universe 1 (450) channels in my case Leg 1 on the tree from channel 1 of the controller to the bottom of the tree for (Leg 1) then at the top that connects to Leg 2 and then at the bottome connect to Leg 3. Then my 2nd Universe would be from channel 2 on the controller to the next 3 legs top to bottom  and basically on down to the 4th channel.. and final 3 legs of the tree. I was way off base then in my thinking...

 

I have an ECG-P12 R and I set up my ports to 150  channels 1-450 as I did in LOR...I'll have to make sure it has a similar (zigzag) set up...

 

Appreciate the info....

 

EZ

[Ron Boyd]

Just remember if you zigzag on the controller, and you zigzag in the software, you'll get ZZZAAAGGGIIITTTYYY ZZZIIIGGGIIITTTYYY. In other words all kinds of jibberish on the strings. If you're going to run 150 pixels from each output, as explained above, Up 50, down 50 and up 50 again. Power inject at the bottom of string 3.

 

UNLESS, you're going to be using the P12 for something else and the tree, the easiest way is to configure each output to 50 pixels and run all 12 from the bottom up. No worries about zigzag or power injection. All of your data and power will come from the board. I did a 16 leg tree the same way this passed year using an E682 with no power injection. I had 16 outputs, 16 pixel strings of 50 pixels and used a 350W, 60 amp PS. I also powered another basic controller for the star from the same power supply. The star had 270 basic nodes in it. Zero problems.

 

All nodes, Pixels and Basic, were 5v

 

Some folks like to do the zigzag option at the controller level, but if you're using Superstar and Nutcracker, when you set up your elements in the visualizer, you can tell it how it's set up. I like the software setup myself. That way when I sequence, it's applying the effects to the tree and how it's set up in the software. I set mine up in the software, exactly like it will be when I erect it in the yard during October

Edited March 25, 2014 by Ron Boyd

[ezimnow]

So If I zig zag then PI on the 3rd....6th...9th and 12th? I was thinking about just going with the Tree this year but I have 3 strips hanging around I never used so I thought I might make ARCH's out of them. In that case I'd have to Zig zag so I'd have available ports....But If I just t go with the tree this year then I can use each port on the Controller per leg of 50 pixels with no PI is what your suggesting?  If I go that route I'd have to change my Controller config correct to match? Would I need to change the  way I have it set up in LOR and NUTCRACKER?   I set it up as 1 leg is 50 and then grouped them to 150  3 legs for 1 Universe. Man It gets confusing to me but everything has to match correct...

 

I do like the idea of not having to Power inject.

[ezimnow]

On another note just to be sure...either way I do this Zig Zag or one channel per leg..does it make a difference in the software and how we sequence it or Nutcracker and SS are smart enought to know which way its set up?

[Paul R]

The easiest option is the one Ron stated (and the way I am doing it).  Put each leg on it's own port on the controller. For your 12 strand tree, you would use 12 ports. Then each strand connects directly to the controller at the bottom of the tree and can be configured very simply. Also, with only 50 pixels per port, you will not need PI.

 

I have (or I should say I have ordered them and am waiting for them to ship) the exact same pixels you mention...16 strings of 12v WS2811 square pixels. I am also getting an E682 (16 ports) and a 350W power supply with enclosure...this should make a solid combination. I am doing a 180 12 strand megatree + 4 arches.

 

To answer your question on the zigzag (if you go that way) and if you do it at the controller. If your controller is programmed similarly to the E682, you program the zigzag at the controller. The controller handles the reversal of the zigs so you don't have to.This means in Nutcracker, SS, or S3, you treat the strings as if they were all oriented the same direction.

 

Ron suggests leaving the controller alone and programming the zigs into the software so that the software matches the physical orientation of the strings. It is all a matter of preference. I would prefer do it at the controller, that way I only have to do it once. If I did it in software, I would have to do it 3 times, once each in Nutcracker, SS, and S3. I prefer to be able to treat the strings as if they were all oriented similarly in the software. Just remember...only do it at one end, either the controller or the software, not both. Otherwise one will undo the other.

 

I'm sure your controller manual has a good writeup on how to program this...I know the E682 manual does.

 

-Paul

[Max-Paul]

The software is not A.I. so you have to point the way up. But once it knows, then it takes over and does its thing.

 

I am not going to do it this year, but have already been playing around with this and its the easiest way to do this. One string of pixels per port or connector on the controller board.

Edited March 25, 2014 by Max-Paul

[ezimnow]

Well since this is my first year I am  for easy...Appreciate all the valuable info from you guys. I will go the route of 1 string per Port on the controller since I really don't have to add ARCH's this year. Once I get better at using XLights/Nutcracker and SS and wait to see what changes LOR will be making I can move forward with more pixels.

 

 

Thanks Again!

 

EZ

[NEWTOUR]

I wanted to say thanks to all who posted here I am ordering my pixels and E682 this year and have been trying to find some good information all of this has been really helpful. Thanks to all and ezimnoiw for starting it.