Another BLOCK_ADDRESS question - E1.20 RDM (Remote Device Management) Protocol Forums

nomis52 · July 29th, 2013

Quote:

Originally Posted by ericthegeek

"ERROR: DMX_BLOCK_ADDRESS included in SUPPORTED_PARAMETERS but responder has no sub-devices"

To me it's similar to the "Sub-Device Status Reporting Threshold" PID that only makes sense when the responder has sub-devices.

Well at most it can be an advisory message, since there is nothing in the standard that enforces it (although it makes complete sense).

este_ · July 30th, 2013

This question relates to the BLOCK_ADDRESS issue raised by Hamish before.

This is my point of view:
BLOCK_ADDRESS only makes sense when there are Sub-Devices present. There is, however, no need to suppress the BLOCK_ADDRESS PID when Sub-Devices have gone (e.g. the "empty" Dimmer Rack referred to earlier). You may assume to receive a valid address in the DMX address range. You may also be able to set (write) a Block Adress without Sub-Devices installed; but slot allocation may only take place as soon as the Sub-Devices (with their respective slot count) are added or enabled.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

July 30th, 2013	#2
este_ Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Germany Posts: 24	This question relates to the BLOCK_ADDRESS issue raised by Hamish before. This is my point of view: BLOCK_ADDRESS only makes sense when there are Sub-Devices present. There is, however, no need to suppress the BLOCK_ADDRESS PID when Sub-Devices have gone (e.g. the "empty" Dimmer Rack referred to earlier). You may assume to receive a valid address in the DMX address range. You may also be able to set (write) a Block Adress without Sub-Devices installed; but slot allocation may only take place as soon as the Sub-Devices (with their respective slot count) are added or enabled.