Running on a shared wireless network?

[Glennz]

I am working for an rv resort and he has a robust wireless system throughout the park with many access points. I have used LOR for years at my house on a separate network. I did a quick test here and it seemed to work. I plugged my controller into one of the access points and was able to controll it while attached to a different access point. We will need 10 controllers through out the park all attached to different access points.  Besides possible slowdown due to network traffic is there any reason why this will not work?

[Don]

Which controller are you referring to?

And how exactly are you controlling it when attached to this network?

[k6ccc]

If he's talking about E1.31 controllers, it should be doable as long as the network is set up to allow it.

More details needed!

 

[Glennz]

2 hours ago, Don said:

Which controller are you referring to?

And how exactly are you controlling it when attached to this network?

Well I have a smart rgb san controller and i was able to run test patterns on the lights using theit built in interface via the ip address of the board. I can always test it with actual LOR software.

[k6ccc]

OK, you're still not giving us much to go on.  Let's see if I have at least a few of the pieces.  You are using SanDevices controllers and you can test via the wired interface on the board (with a computer I assume).  I used SanDevices controllers for years and they work just fine with LOR.  How are you planning on get from the WiFi network to the SanDevices controllers (which do not have WiFi)?

The other part will be the network configuration.  This you likely need to get from the guy that runs the RV park WiFi.  Is it configured to allow you to access all the locations from whatever location you intend to use as the control point?

 

[Glennz]

So I just plugged the san controller into one of the access points he has throughout the park via a cat 5 cable. They are all wireless to each other. Then I used my laptop through wifi on a different access point and was able to access the San device ip address. This was just a small test. We need 10 controllers and will go with the LOR ones because they are in stock still. We will probably set up a private hidden wifi network so we can partition bandwidth to it during show times. Does this give you enough info?

[Jeremiah Ackermann]

@Glennz I think everyone is asking which controller from LOR, because the Pixies use serial data (RS-485) and not IP traffic over Ethernet (typically E131 or could be ArtNet). There was a PixCon 16 that could take E131, but those are sold out. The RS-485 is ran over Ethernet wire and uses RJ-45 jacks, but it’s very different data and voltages sent on those wires that you don’t want to mix up.
 

Now you could still use Pixies but you need a PixieLink at every access point you want to connect at which could be costly. https://store.lightorama.com/products/pixielink

 

I have used E131 over WiFi in the past, but I would get stuttering at times that would last a few seconds. The display would look frozen and then look like it went in fast forward over those few seconds. I have not seen the same problem with a hard wired setup. The real problem with WiFi in my eyes is the latency one can have. So if your doing a lot of fast effects/animation, there may be noticeable stuttering. It would be best to try creating a sequence with effects you want to have, play it, and see what happens. A single controller could be fine, but as you scale up, you may see more issues. If I recall correctly, I got slightly better results using multicast rather than unicast on my E131 networks when I went over WiFi.

Edited December 14, 2023 by Jeremiah Ackermann

[Glennz]

50 minutes ago, Jeremiah Ackermann said:

@Glennz I think everyone is asking which controller from LOR, because the Pixies use serial data (RS-485) and not IP traffic over Ethernet (typically E131 or could be ArtNet). There was a PixCon 16 that could take E131, but those are sold out. The RS-485 is ran over Ethernet wire and uses RJ-45 jacks, but it’s very different data and voltages sent on those wires that you don’t want to mix up.
 

Now you could still use Pixies but you need a PixieLink at every access point you want to connect at which could be costly. https://store.lightorama.com/products/pixielink

 

I have used E131 over WiFi in the past, but I would get stuttering at times that would last a few seconds. The display would look frozen and then look like it went in fast forward over those few seconds. I have not seen the same problem with a hard wired setup. The real problem with WiFi in my eyes is the latency one can have that can cause the hiccups above. If your don’t doing a lot of fast effects/animation, it may be noticeable. So it’s best to test by creating a sequence with effects you want to have, play it, and see what happens.

Why would a pixie4 smart pixel controller board need the pixie link at each access point?

[Jeremiah Ackermann]

35 minutes ago, Glennz said:

Why would a pixie4 smart pixel controller board need the pixie link at each access point?

In your original post, you mentioned 10 controllers throughout the park attached to different access points. Because the Pixie4 controller cannot use standard Ethernet/IP traffic, you need a converter (PixieLink) to get that to RS-485 (E131 to LOR/DMX). The Pixie4 may have RJ45 jacks that function just like a normal network jack, but its not the same thing, It just uses Cat-5 Ethernet cabling out of convivence.

The SanDevices controllers are using E131, so that can work fine (minus a potential stuttering issue I mentioned before).

[k6ccc]

57 minutes ago, Glennz said:

Why would a pixie4 smart pixel controller board need the pixie link at each access point?

Because a Pixie controller uses RS-485 serial ONLY - no ethernet.