RFE/Question: Saving Sequences as Binaries?

[jstorms]

Can I save a sequence from the "Sequence Editor" as a binary?

 

I would like to improve performance. With 2200 pixels I'm seeing lag on a very beefy computer (32gb ram, etc.). Noticed others complaining about the same thing. I know the pixel editor and superstar can save as binary, but I've also heard people using PE complaining about lag as well. Is this a player issue or something else?

[wmilkie]

there are different reasons for lag; and its probably not the computer. I struggled with lag and other issues this year; in fact you helped me with it.

It came down to the way lor processes stuff(how it was explained to me, both lor and dmx)with the comm listener I believe. I split my networks up into a fast one and a slow one and my problems dissapeared; but honestly the lor stuff is what slowed it all down. If I ran 6000+rgb channels with NO lor, I had NO lag; as soon as I add lor, I had lag and erratic behavior. Bob suggested I split the networks up which is what ultimately solved the problem.

Bob might know about changing it to a binary; you might also ask people on the Xlights forum(Sean or Dan)

[Don]

Can I save a sequence from the "Sequence Editor" as a binary?

 

I would like to improve performance. With 2200 pixels I'm seeing lag on a very beefy computer (32gb ram, etc.). Noticed others complaining about the same thing. I know the pixel editor and superstar can save as binary, but I've also heard people using PE complaining about lag as well. Is this a player issue or something else?

 

How many networks are you running? What speed are they set to? What firmware version are you running?

 

If you think the size of the sequence is an issue, use compressed sequences.

 

I doubt it's your computer. I'd suspect network.

[k6ccc]

I run an ancient XP desktop as a show computer. If playing from SE (which I never do), it could not keep up on even moderately busy sequences. However it had no problem running the show player until this year. When testing Brian Bruderer's Wizards in Winter sequence after I added another 2,000 channels of my yard, I was seeing lag during the busy parts on both my E1.31 and LOR networks. I suspected the show computer was running out of CPU cycles. Task Manager confirmed it. Switched the output from SuperStar to an intensity file, and the problem solved - even after adding another 1,000 channels. I have everything except about a dozen channels running as part of the intensity file. The remaining dozen are on Gen 1 controllers that can't run on an enhanced network. I will be replacing those two controllers in the spring sale so for 2016, EVERYTHING will be on intensity files.

[wmilkie]

" I will be replacing those two controllers in the spring sale so for 2016, EVERYTHING will be on intensity files. "

thats my plan also for next year

[jstorms]

I have one LOR RS485 network running at 57.6K (not enhanced) with about 10 controllers and 1 CCP controller driving 100 pixels.

Then I have 4 pixel controllers (2 SanDevices E682s + 2 Falcon 16v2's) driving 2100 pixels on an E1.31 (Ethernet) network, these are the ones that are slow.

Using compressed/preloaded sequences.

[Don]

I have one LOR RS485 network running at 57.6K (not enhanced) with about 10 controllers and 1 CCP controller driving 100 pixels.

Then I have 4 pixel controllers (2 SanDevices E682s + 2 Falcon 16v2's) driving 2100 pixels on an E1.31 (Ethernet) network, these are the ones that are slow.

Using compressed/preloaded sequences.

 

Granted, I'm on the outside looking in ... but I'd be more concerned about the E1.31 configuration than I would the LOR files. Seeing as how you don't see lag on the RS485 devices, and are already running compressed sequences, that leaves the network on the E1.31 as the item that is different, and needing the most attention.

[k6ccc]

I have one LOR RS485 network running at 57.6K (not enhanced) with about 10 controllers and 1 CCP controller driving 100 pixels.

Then I have 4 pixel controllers (2 SanDevices E682s + 2 Falcon 16v2's) driving 2100 pixels on an E1.31 (Ethernet) network, these are the ones that are slow.

Using compressed/preloaded sequences.

 

If I were you, I would be running the LOR network at something faster than 57.6K, although you said that is not a problem, but I think I would anyway.

 

I'm kinda with Don on looking at the E1.31 environment.  You did not describe it, but that's at least 13 universes, which should not be a problem for a 100Base-T network, but COULD choke a 10Base-T network (depending on how it's configured).  Most likely it's more universes than 13.  I'm running 14 this year on my ancient show computer without any trouble - over a network that by most consumer descriptions would be complex.  Can you describe you E1.31 network?