Forum: RDM General Implementation Discussion
October 19th, 2009
|
|
Replies: 17
Views: 48,065
|
|
Forum: RDM Interpretation Questions
October 19th, 2009
|
|
Replies: 13
Views: 75,420
|
|
Forum: RDM General Implementation Discussion
October 19th, 2009
|
|
Replies: 17
Views: 48,065
> Should I implement this pid?
It's a nice...
> Should I implement this pid?
It's a nice way to deliver messages from the responder without the controller having to know what to ask for.
> I do not support queueed messages
Status...
|
|
Forum: RDM Interpretation Questions
October 19th, 2009
|
|
Replies: 4
Views: 98,788
Unfortunately there's no standard way to...
Unfortunately there's no standard way to determine the number of scenes a responder supports, other than getting a NACK when you try and use a scene that the responder doesn't support.
|
|
Forum: RDM Interpretation Questions
October 18th, 2009
|
|
Replies: 4
Views: 98,788
|
|
Forum: RDM Interpretation Questions
October 18th, 2009
|
|
Replies: 1
Views: 38,903
> if the device does not support...
> if the device does not support PRESET_PLAYBACK_ALL
> should it NACK with DATA_OUT_OF_RANGE or ACK and
> ignore?
I'd vote for a NACK, then the controller knows it was received and explicitly...
|
|
Forum: RDM Interpretation Questions
October 18th, 2009
|
|
Replies: 13
Views: 496,909
|
|
Forum: RDM Interpretation Questions
October 16th, 2009
|
|
Replies: 13
Views: 496,909
|
|
Forum: RDM General Implementation Discussion
October 16th, 2009
|
|
Replies: 6
Views: 35,341
I'm a little uncomfortable setting the LED...
I'm a little uncomfortable setting the LED current via a personality. If the wrong current setting is used, it has the potential to damage the connected LEDs. Typically, something that can damage...
|
|
Forum: RDM General Implementation Discussion
October 14th, 2009
|
|
Replies: 6
Views: 35,341
|
|
Forum: RDM Interpretation Questions
October 14th, 2009
|
|
Replies: 13
Views: 496,909
|
|
Forum: RDM General Implementation Discussion
October 13th, 2009
|
|
Replies: 19
Views: 45,076
Not sure what else to tell you. The big thing...
Not sure what else to tell you. The big thing that bothers me is that your Sub-Devices have to lie and claim they have a DMX footprint when they don't, and claim to have a DMX address when they...
|
|
Forum: RDM General Implementation Discussion
October 13th, 2009
|
|
Replies: 19
Views: 45,076
|
|
Forum: RDM General Implementation Discussion
October 13th, 2009
|
|
Replies: 19
Views: 45,076
Couple of things I notice:
The Sub-Device...
Couple of things I notice:
The Sub-Device should report 12 sub-devices (Section 10.5.1 - Sub-Device Count).
I'd really rather see the sub-device have a footprint of zero and a starting address of...
|
|
Forum: RDM General Implementation Discussion
October 13th, 2009
|
|
Replies: 19
Views: 45,076
|
|
Forum: RDM General Implementation Discussion
October 13th, 2009
|
|
Replies: 19
Views: 45,076
> Footprint on each subdevice is 1
I suspect...
> Footprint on each subdevice is 1
I suspect this is part of your problem. Because you implemented the patching on the root device, then you'll need to declare the root device to have a footprint...
|
|
Forum: RDM General Implementation Discussion
October 7th, 2009
|
|
Replies: 19
Views: 45,076
> This leads me to the next question: Do all...
> This leads me to the next question: Do all subdevices
> also have to support the minimum mandatory PIDs?
There's no mandate that sub-devices have to support all of the other required PIDs. Per...
|
|
Forum: RDM General Implementation Discussion
October 7th, 2009
|
|
Replies: 19
Views: 45,076
> DEVICE_INFO reports how many sub-devices are...
> DEVICE_INFO reports how many sub-devices are present.
Correct. DEVICE_INFO will also need to respond with different data when the GET DEVICE_INFO PID is sent to a sub-device than it does for...
|
|
Forum: RDM General Implementation Discussion
October 7th, 2009
|
|
Replies: 19
Views: 45,076
|
|
Forum: RDM General Implementation Discussion
October 1st, 2009
|
|
Replies: 1
Views: 31,922
Is it a device where you expect the number of...
Is it a device where you expect the number of phases to change on a regular basis (like a dimmer pack that can be wired for single phase or three phase)?
You could have multiple voltage sensors,...
|
|
Forum: RDM Interpretation Questions
October 1st, 2009
|
|
Replies: 14
Views: 75,550
There are already responders in the wild that...
There are already responders in the wild that don't support the DMX_START_ADDRESS PID. Even if it were to be made mandatory in a future version of the document, controllers would still have to...
|
|
Forum: RDM General Implementation Discussion
September 30th, 2009
|
|
Replies: 3
Views: 37,272
|
|
Forum: RDM Interpretation Questions
September 30th, 2009
|
|
Replies: 14
Views: 75,550
> Although you could argue that they are...
> Although you could argue that they are "non-compliant"
> products, I would not be that upset to see products that
> declared the existence of manufacturer specific PIDS in
> there list of...
|
|
Forum: RDM General Implementation Discussion
August 4th, 2009
|
|
Replies: 1
Views: 35,571
|
|
Forum: RDM General Implementation Discussion
July 29th, 2009
|
|
Replies: 1
Views: 34,172
|
|
Forum: RDM Interpretation Questions
July 29th, 2009
|
|
Replies: 1
Views: 37,706
|
|
Forum: RDM Physical Layer/Hardware Discussion
July 8th, 2009
|
|
Replies: 24
Views: 85,068
|
|
Forum: RDM Physical Layer/Hardware Discussion
July 8th, 2009
|
|
Replies: 24
Views: 85,068
|
|
Forum: RDM Timing Discussion
July 6th, 2009
|
|
Replies: 4
Views: 52,012
> I would interpret the above to mean that a...
> I would interpret the above to mean that a responder
> must accept packets meeting the timing requirements
> of Table 3-3 line 1 even though the maximum time
> values are greater than the...
|
|
Forum: RDM Timing Discussion
July 5th, 2009
|
|
Replies: 4
Views: 52,012
|
|
Forum: RDM Physical Layer/Hardware Discussion
June 25th, 2009
|
|
Replies: 24
Views: 85,068
|
|
Forum: RDM Physical Layer/Hardware Discussion
June 15th, 2009
|
|
Replies: 24
Views: 85,068
|
|
Forum: RDM Timing Discussion
May 22nd, 2009
|
|
Replies: 6
Views: 65,884
The problem with USB UARTs isn't with the...
The problem with USB UARTs isn't with the inter-slot timing. The problem is meeting the line turnaround time requirements. At the end of a packet, you typically have 176 microseconds to turn the...
|
|
Forum: DMX512 Discussion
May 13th, 2009
|
|
Replies: 6
Views: 56,231
|
|
Forum: RDM Timing Discussion
May 12th, 2009
|
|
Replies: 6
Views: 65,884
Technically it's a valid solution. The key word...
Technically it's a valid solution. The key word is "may". A responder can wait as long as it wishes for the inter-slot timeout. Realistically though, no controller would generate packets like that...
|
|
Forum: RDM Interpretation Questions
April 16th, 2009
|
|
Replies: 2
Views: 39,363
|
|
Forum: RDM General Implementation Discussion
April 10th, 2009
|
|
Replies: 4
Views: 40,889
Table 3-2 Note 3 includes up to 700uS of system...
Table 3-2 Note 3 includes up to 700uS of system delay, so even if the responder starts sending within the 2.0mS allowed by Table 3-4, it may not reach the controller until 2.7mS, which allows for a...
|
|
Forum: RDM Interpretation Questions
April 10th, 2009
|
|
Replies: 2
Views: 32,898
|
|
Forum: RDM General Implementation Discussion
March 25th, 2009
|
|
Replies: 4
Views: 40,889
If you're doing an exhaustive discovery (full...
If you're doing an exhaustive discovery (full binary search with no shortcuts), there are some data dependencies. Depending on which leaf nodes of the tree are populated, discovery can require...
|
|
Forum: RDM General Implementation Discussion
February 26th, 2009
|
|
Replies: 1
Views: 25,623
In most cases, RDM won't take up anywhere near...
In most cases, RDM won't take up anywhere near 50% of the bandwidth. Most RDM packets are relatively short (under 80 bytes for the request plus response), so even if you're sending an RDM request...
|
|
Forum: RDM General Implementation Discussion
February 11th, 2009
|
|
Replies: 2
Views: 25,108
Here's a few hex dumps off the DMX line. A "K"...
Here's a few hex dumps off the DMX line. A "K" represents a break.
Get Current Address:
K CC 01 18 4C 52 00 7A 18 46 47 44 00 40 30 00 06 01 00 00 00 20 00 F0 00 04 6D
K CC 01 1A 47 44 00 40 30...
|
|
Forum: RDM General Implementation Discussion
February 5th, 2009
|
|
Replies: 6
Views: 45,167
|
|
Forum: RDM General Implementation Discussion
February 5th, 2009
|
|
Replies: 6
Views: 45,167
|
|
Forum: RDM Interpretation Questions
January 8th, 2009
|
|
Replies: 2
Views: 29,997
Take a look at this thread, it has a similar...
Take a look at this thread, it has a similar discussion
http://www.rdmprotocol.org/forums/showthread.php?p=1136
Based on my reading, the personality would run from 0x01 to 0xFF (or as you said,...
|
|
Forum: RDM Physical Layer/Hardware Discussion
December 4th, 2008
|
|
Replies: 2
Views: 38,180
Yes, the savings can be significant. Not only...
Yes, the savings can be significant. Not only can you remove a number of components, it also means you don't need the user interface management software which can involve a good deal of work.
...
|
|
Forum: RDM General Implementation Discussion
November 4th, 2008
|
|
Replies: 7
Views: 39,562
The E1.20 standard is an ANSI standard that is...
The E1.20 standard is an ANSI standard that is open to anyone who wishes to implement it. The document itself it available to anyone for $40.00.
There aren't really any "IP addresses" is RDM. ...
|
|
Forum: RDM General Implementation Discussion
October 14th, 2008
|
|
Replies: 8
Views: 59,852
|
|
Forum: RDM General Implementation Discussion
October 14th, 2008
|
|
Replies: 8
Views: 59,852
ACK_TIMER Handling
There seem to be two different, and largely incompatible, interpretations of ACD_TIMER in the wild.
According to the text of E1.20, after sending an ACK_TIMER, the responder "shall" send the...
|
|
Forum: RDM Interpretation Questions
October 2nd, 2008
|
|
Replies: 1
Views: 29,395
E1.20 Errate Public Review
Looking over the Errata document that's currently up for public review, I don't understand the following:
> "All GET messages throughout Section 10 should
> show the show the Sub-Device GET...
|
|
Forum: RDM Physical Layer/Hardware Discussion
August 5th, 2008
|
|
Replies: 7
Views: 52,579
|
|
Forum: RDM Physical Layer/Hardware Discussion
August 4th, 2008
|
|
Replies: 7
Views: 52,579
The R1 bias resistor is recommended to be 562...
The R1 bias resistor is recommended to be 562 ohm. If the 485 line is driven to 5v, you're looking at (5v-3.3v)/562ohm = 3mA. As for pulling your power supply out of spec, 3mA is no worse than a...
|
