Star RGB Configuration

[bwinter]

So no practical experience here, just been looking over wiring schematics and trying to understand how to configure elements.  I do have a question on whether or not this configuration below would work:

 

Say I built a simple 5-pointed star.  Each "arm" of the star is a simple straight line of 10 RGB smart LEDs, radiating outward from the center (5 arms, 10 LEDs/arm).

 

Say I connected all 5 arms/strands together in the center of the star, and then this center pointed were connected a controller.

 

Would I be able to control the 1st LED (node) on EACH arm together (as channel 1-3), and the 2nd LED on each arm as channel 4-6, etc?  Basically, would I be able to control each "ring" (inner, outer, mid, etc.) independently?  Obviously, with this configuration, I can't control each ARM separately (which may not be a concern for what I'm thinking).

 

All the star schematics I've seen so far, all the LEDs are in a linear configuration throughout the entire star.  But would a simple design like above work?  What am I missing to why this would, or would not work?

 

Again, I have zero practical experience here--just been reading, watching, trying to learn.

[k6ccc]

Your plan might work.  The issue you might run into is that the controller that is driving the star will have to drive five pixels in parallel (the first pixel in each arm).  It might work, and it might not.  I have tried driving four pixels in parallel and it worked.  Assuming that you can drive five pixels in parallel, your plan would work.

 

Just for useful info, here is my pixel star...

http://newburghlights.org/pixel_tree.html#Star

[bwinter]

Thanks Jim--so do you think the concern is with "driving" the data, or driving the power to each arm?

 

Or say, for example, I wanted to take my "5-pointed star" configuration, and fold it into a "mini-tree" configuration, adding several more arms.  How many arms could I add, before running into problems?

 

I would think it's trivial/easy (but important) to POWER each arm independently.  So it would seem to me, the main concern is with "driving" the data down multiple arms "in parallel" (I don't even know what the correct term is to describe that).

[EmmienLightFan]

Power is easy, just connect the + and - of each string/arm to a point in the centre. Power doesn't have to flow in a particular direction.

 

It is not recommended to connect more than a few data strings together as each time the signal will deteriorate. I did 2 on a really long string and a single pixel and the end of the long string would just go light blue and flash when any other pixel changed.

 

Why don't you connect them all "in series" so you have individual control?

[Ron Boyd]

If you look at my pic in my signature, the big Pixel burst in the center, (some call it a spinner), is set up in the same configuration as what you're wanting to do, mine are 10 arms at 25 pixels, but in essence, the same. I do spins and bursts all the time with it.

 

The website in my sig, has a 2015 Videos page also. if you care to take a peek at some of the videos, you can see all sorts of things you can do with it.

 

If using Superstar, the effects are almost endless. The setup in SS is critical though. Brian helped me understand how to set up the visualizer file to make importing in to SS easy. I can help you with the set up if needed. I can also send you some sequences of effects including the SS file and visualizer if you like.

[EmmienLightFan]

If you look at my pic in my signature, the big Pixel burst in the center, (some call it a spinner), is set up in the same configuration as what you're wanting to do, mine are 10 arms at 25 pixels, but in essence, the same. I do spins and bursts all the time with it.

 

The website in my sig, has a 2015 Videos page also. if you care to take a peek at some of the videos, you can see all sorts of things you can do with it.

 

If using Superstar, the effects are almost endless. The setup in SS is critical though. Brian helped me understand how to set up the visualizer file to make importing in to SS easy. I can help you with the set up if needed. I can also send you some sequences of effects including the SS file and visualizer if you like.

The OP wants all the arms connected together, so each does the same thing. Yours arms are connected in series or to different outputs, aren't they?

[bwinter]

Ron--if your element is connected in the way I'm describing, how can you do "spins"? A "spin" (basted on my limited understanding) would require that each arm be controlled independently. I don't think my description/configuration would allow that.

I agree with the "burst" though, as each ring (inner, outter, 2nd, 3rd, etc.) can be controlled as a group.

Edited January 9, 2016 by bwinter

[Ebuechner]

Ron--if your element is connected in the way I'm describing, how can you do "spins"? A "spin" (basted on my limited understanding) would require that each arm be controlled independently. I don't think my description/configuration would allow that.

I agree with the "burst" though, as each ring (inner, outter, 2nd, 3rd, etc.) can be controlled as a group.

I understand what you're trying to do but I don't think there's much of a advantage. You would save on channels for each one of your elements but you wouldn't have the flexibility to do spins and other effects. I think in the long run you would be disappointed in the outcome and you're risking having things acting up while you're running your show.

[bwinter]

As far as "why" I would want to, there are numerous variation on this element I can think of.

One logistical reason, though, is the number of channels required. My configuration would require 30 channels (10 LEDs/arm X 3). Wiring my element in the normal "series" configuration would require 150 channels (10 LEDs/arm X 5 arms X 3).

Sure, I would lose a bit of functionality (couldn't do spins and control each arm independently), but that's okay--these are just secondary accent pieces (and I may want many of these elements). So economy-of-scale is a factor.

And secondary, I'm just wondering why this would, or wouldn't work.

[bwinter]

Honestly, I'm quite okay that my stars could only do bursts, and not spins. I guarantee I wouldn't be disappointed that I can't do spins.

[Ron Boyd]

The OP wants all the arms connected together, so each does the same thing. Yours arms are connected in series or to different outputs, aren't they?

# 1 pixel is at the center of the top right arm, 25 at the end, Each arm is exactly alike with pixel 250 at the outer edge of arm #10. A single, continuous string of 250 pixels on a single output from the Falcon board. So, yes I guess mine is different (after re-reading the original post). But, if using Smart RGBs, there's no need to connect 5 pixels as 1, unless the OP just wants 10 RGB channels instead of 150.

Ron--if your element is connected in the way I'm describing, how can you do "spins"? A "spin" (basted on my limited understanding) would require that each arm be controlled independently. I don't think my description/configuration would allow that.

I agree with the "burst" though, as each ring (inner, outter, 2nd, 3rd, etc.) can be controlled as a group.

After re reading your post, I realized mine is different than your proposed design. My bad on not reading it more carefully.

 

I would think it would work, but if the burst effect is all you're looking for, I would do dumb RGB. Could only do 9 rings with the readily available Basic controllers. 

 

Sorry I misinterpreted your post.

Edited January 9, 2016 by Ron Boyd

[bwinter]

So Ron, if I went with the dumb RGB route you suggested, each "ring" would have to be wired together as one strand? Given the spacing between each LED, especially in the outer rings, I would need to splice each LED to get the required distance separation?

[Ebuechner]

Using dumb RGB is definitely an option but I think once you factor in the cost of controllers you will want to rethink things. Are these items that you're going to use in a cluster? And to answer your question each string would be wired together. But now with dumb RGB you would need individual controllers for each row. Or 10 wires running to a remote controller. You can get 27 channel RGB controllers but thats can only give you 9 rows.

[Ron Boyd]

So Ron, if I went with the dumb RGB route you suggested, each "ring" would have to be wired together as one strand? Given the spacing between each LED, especially in the outer rings, I would need to splice each LED to get the required distance separation?

 

The above highlighted statement would be true. Using smart pixels with all connected at one central point, will only have one data stream or input. I believe it would work the way you are describing, if my understanding is correct. I've never attempted something like that so I don't know for sure. The only way to know for sure is to hook up 50 pixels in your configuration and do a test. If it works, Fantastic, if it don't, then you have a couple more options in this thread.

 

My experience is mostly with pixels configured the way I outlined above in my first post so I think me being able to help is probably a moot point.

 

Good luck anyway. I hope you get it to work.

[saxon]

+1 on all the "might work"

 

The hurdle would be driving the first pixel in each arm (5). After that the first pixel in each arm will regenerate the signal power for the following pixels in each arm. I know with a Sandevice e131 controller, there is a jumper that can be removed to increase the data voltage. ( not sure but its like .5 volt increase) .

 

food for thought

[k6ccc]

As far as "why" I would want to, there are numerous variation on this element I can think of.

One logistical reason, though, is the number of channels required. My configuration would require 30 channels (10 LEDs/arm X 3). Wiring my element in the normal "series" configuration would require 150 channels (10 LEDs/arm X 5 arms X 3).

Sure, I would lose a bit of functionality (couldn't do spins and control each arm independently), but that's okay--these are just secondary accent pieces (and I may want many of these elements). So economy-of-scale is a factor.

And secondary, I'm just wondering why this would, or wouldn't work.

 

As for the 30 vs 150 channels, my response to that would be something like - so what?  What's the problem?  My personal opinion is that if you limit yourself, at some point later you will regret that limitation.

 

The only technical reason what you are asking about is if whatever is sending the data to the first five pixels.  If that signal source (whether it is a pixel controller or another pixel) can provide enough signal to drive five pixels, it will work.  If it can't, it wont.  As I said in an earlier post, I have driven four pixels.

[bwinter]

As for the 30 vs 150 channels, my response to that would be something like - so what?  What's the problem?  My personal opinion is that if you limit yourself, at some point later you will regret that limitation.

 

The only technical reason what you are asking about is if whatever is sending the data to the first five pixels.  If that signal source (whether it is a pixel controller or another pixel) can provide enough signal to drive five pixels, it will work.  If it can't, it wont.  As I said in an earlier post, I have driven four pixels.

 

As I said earlier: 30 vs 150 channels--PER ELEMENT, and I've already stated that I want may want multiple of these elements.  Any I'm only limiting myself in that I can't do a swirl (on a secondary accent piece--no big deal).  I already have plans for more advanced elements--every single LED in a show doesn't need to be independently controlled.

 

My question wasn't whether or not I SHOULD do this, from a design-perspective.  It was whether or not I COULD do this from a technical-perspective.

[bwinter]

+1 on all the "might work"

 

The hurdle would be driving the first pixel in each arm (5). After that the first pixel in each arm will regenerate the signal power for the following pixels in each arm. I know with a Sandevice e131 controller, there is a jumper that can be removed to increase the data voltage. ( not sure but its like .5 volt increase) .

 

food for thought

 

Interesting--I'll have to research this further--definitely the type of info I was hoping to get!  I had anticipated that I'm probably going the e131 route, but haven't spec'ed out any specific controllers yet.

[Steven]

I designed this star in 2014. It sits on top of my pixel tree.

 

It's a 6-RGB-channel star with channels that go from center to tips. Here's channel 1:

 

The 12v RGB nodes are connected to a 27-channel DMX controller mounted directly under the star:

 

It was a bunch of wiring work:

 

Would I do it this way again? I don't know. There is something to the simplicity of 6 RGB channels, but using smart pixel nodes would have allowed me to "spin" the star. I'm satisfied with it, and I'll think I'll keep it.

[bwinter]

Thanks Steven--glad to know this concept works!