LOR and San

[chrisuk]

Hi Guys,

 

I'm new to LOR but want to add a 'SanDevice' to control my WS2812B pixels.

 

I'm confused as to how the to network's work together?

 

Do i add the PIXELs/San to the LOR software as normal and then use them on the show editor as any other lights?

 

 

Thanks

[Crazydave]

You will need to add RGB (DMX) for each pixel.

 

For example.   If you have 100 pixels to be controlled by a SanDevices e682,  In the LOR sequence editor, you will need to add 300 DMX channels (each pixel will use 3 DMX  Red/Green/Blue or RGB channels)  those 300 channels will then need to be converted to RGB channels (to make 1 pixel use 3 DMX channels)  this will make your life much easier.

 

You will also have to configure the Network Settings in LOR to point you DMX Universe to the SanDevices Channel.

 

For example:

 

Pixel 1 Red = DMX 1-1

Pixel 1 Green = DMX 1-2

Pixel 1 Blue = DMX 1-3

 

Pixel 2 Red = DMX 1-4

Pixel 2 Green = DMX 1-5

Pixel 2 Blue = DMX 1-6

 

 

also:  read these threads:

http://forums.lightorama.com/index.php?/topic/23207-initial-setup-for-e131-if-you-do-not-have-an-lor-rs485-usb-adapter/

 

Also this guy has some vid tuturials on setting up e1.31 on LOR
 

Edited September 17, 2014 by Crazydave

[sticks4legs]

Quick note, when you go to do some testing make sure you have the LOR control panel active

[Denny]

The easiest way to add your RGB channels to your existing sequence is to right click in the left column of the grid where you want to insert your RGB channels, select "Insert RGB Channels,"select "Insert Multiple Channels (above or below)",  it will ask "How Many RGB Channels do you want to Insert?"  Enter the number of RGB channels (that is, the number of pixels that you have), select "OK" and LOR will do the rest.

[chrisuk]

Hi,

 

Thanks for all the reply's i think i'm going to have to do alot or research.

 

I am unable to find the video tutorials as mentioned above? Is there any links?

 

THanks

[KStatefan]

Hi,

 

Thanks for all the reply's i think i'm going to have to do alot or research.

 

I am unable to find the video tutorials as mentioned above? Is there any links?

 

THanks

 

http://www.holidaycoro.com/kb_results.asp?ID=15

 

 

[ShaggySS]

I didn't see it mentioned above but when you are talking network you need two networks.  The LOR network will be separate from your E131 network.  Your E1.31 network works via a standard network connection.  So the cable that allows your computer to talk on you home network needs to be unplugged and the SAN Device gets plugged in there.  Give your computer an IP of 10.190.1.205 and open internet explorer and go to 10.190.1.206  and there is the controller.  

[stanward]

Isn't it easier to set the E682 to Unicast and give that a specific IP address?

[ShaggySS]

I have always read multicast but that info is 2+ years ago when I read about it and set it up.  

[k6ccc]

There are advantages to unicast but multicast is a little easier to setup. I ran multicast my first year with an E682 (2012) because that was all the E682 supported back then. 2013 was unicast, and both E6804s that run year round are unicast. This year there will be the 2 E6804s that run 24x7x365 and one E682 that will be up for Halloween and a 2nd added for Christmas. All are unicast. As a networking dude, I don't like multicast for most stuff.

[CLD Kevin]

From my understanding the main difference between multi and unicast is multi sorta broadcast to all channels even if your not using all which basically uses up more bandwidth. Unicast is specific to the channels using....less bandwidth. But multi is easier to setup.

I've used multi but not have not unicast yet. Unicast does not look much harder to setup other than assigning specific IPs for the controller.

Edited October 2, 2014 by CLD Kevin

[KStatefan]

From my understanding the main difference between multi and unicast is multi sorta broadcast to all channels even if your not using all which basically uses up more bandwidth. Unicast is specific to the channels using....less bandwidth. But multi is easier to setup.

I've used multi but not have not unicast yet. Unicast does not look much harder to setup other than assigning specific IPs for the controller.

 

I have my three controllers set up in unicast.  It took a little bit longer to set up just to enter the IP address for each universe but not very much time. 

[ShaggySS]

There are advantages to unicast but multicast is a little easier to setup. I ran multicast my first year with an E682 (2012) because that was all the E682 supported back then. 2013 was unicast, and both E6804s that run year round are unicast. This year there will be the 2 E6804s that run 24x7x365 and one E682 that will be up for Halloween and a 2nd added for Christmas. All are unicast. As a networking dude, I don't like multicast for most stuff.

That explains things.  I jumped on too early for the addition of efficiency.  Using IP for the controllers could get complicated when the show switches from Halloween to Christmas but I suspect I should make the switch.  Thanks for the info.  

 

With Multicast you had to run a separate network.  I suspect with unicast you could run your show of the same network as the rest in your house.  Since mine are separate I think I will keep it that way but for anyone new coming in that will greatly simplify things.  

Edited October 3, 2014 by ShaggySS

[sax]

I use unicast.

My show computer is not part of the home network. This allows me to connect direct into my PCs LAN port and control the sans. So, I call this the e 1.31 network to go with my USB LOR network and USB holiday coro dongle dmx network.

Adding another sans will require me to change the IP address of either the new or old sans. If I were planning proper I should readdress the sans as I get them to something other than the default 206 and this would allow adding to always be simple....since there would never be conflict.

And during testing I was able to plug the sans into my home network....some 40 or so devices connected...plugging it in to any available port in the house and my lights worked without issue. While the kids were sucking up bandwith with online gaming.

Never tried multicast. But I imagine it would kill my network. At least my bandwidth.

[k6ccc]

The big issue with using multicast for E1.31 when it is on your home network is if you use WiFi on that LAN.  Your wired LAN is most likely 100Mb/s (although it could be 1Gb/s (also known as 1000Mb/s)., and there is a remote possibility that it's only 10Mb/s).  It would take a huge amount of E1.31 to choke a 100Mb/s network.  Unless you have fairly new WiFi, it will be much slower than your wired network.  Even if all your E1.31 traffic is on wired media, if you are using multicast for E1.31, all that traffic will get broadcast on your WiFi and take up bandwidth.  If you are using unicast, the vast majority of E1.31 traffic will never touch your WiFi (unless you are using the WiFi for connection to some E1.31 device).

[ShaggySS]

The big issue with using multicast for E1.31 when it is on your home network is if you use WiFi on that LAN.  Your wired LAN is most likely 100Mb/s (although it could be 1Gb/s (also known as 1000Mb/s)., and there is a remote possibility that it's only 10Mb/s).  It would take a huge amount of E1.31 to choke a 100Mb/s network.  Unless you have fairly new WiFi, it will be much slower than your wired network.  Even if all your E1.31 traffic is on wired media, if you are using multicast for E1.31, all that traffic will get broadcast on your WiFi and take up bandwidth.  If you are using unicast, the vast majority of E1.31 traffic will never touch your WiFi (unless you are using the WiFi for connection to some E1.31 device).

Yep noticed this exact issue with my wifi.  Took me forever to trace it back.  Did static routes on that computer for the two network cards and that solved it but I like the idea of being able to run it on my internal network.  Running fewer cables sounds nice.  

[jerrymac]

Multicast -vs- Unicast   Here is an analogy that may help.  Simplistic but accurate I believe:

 

Multicast   .............Think of your mailman  (oops.    postal carrier  ) giving everyone on your block a copy of everyone's mail with an address on the envelope.  Each person only opens the mail with there address and discards the rest.       Works OK as long as your block does not have  a really of people on it and the mailman  (oops   again  postal carrier   ) car carry all of that mail.

 

Unicast   ............   Postal Carrier (see I got it PC this time )   starts out with everyone's mail and only drops off the mail with the proper address at their house.   Envelope must have the address (sequence software) and the mailbox  (controller ) must have the address.

[LarryDrumAZ]

We use 2 SanDevices controllers (682 and 6904), both on unicast run on a dedicated network, separate from the home network.  Inside the house I have our gigabit network switch running all the tv's and such.  In the garage I have the show machine that is isolated from the home network (wifi turned off) and only connected to the outdoor network.  A single cat-5 network cable runs from the machine to the 1st controller (682).  Inside the box is the controller, power supply and a cheap 10/100 network switch ($5 from wally mart online).  From the switch are 2 network cables to the 682 (a whopping 3 inches away) and the 6904, about 200 feet away.

 

While it is true you are not likely to overload your network with the Christmas show, there is no need to flood it with useless information that the rest of the house cannot use.