E1.20 RDM (Remote Device Management) Protocol Forums  

Go Back   E1.20 RDM (Remote Device Management) Protocol Forums > RDM Developer Forums > RDM Interpretation Questions
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

RDM Interpretation Questions Discussion and questions relating to interpreting and understanding the E1.20 RDM Standard.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old June 25th, 2013   #1
hamish
Member
 
hamish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Dartmoor, Devon, England
Posts: 56
Send a message via Skype™ to hamish
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ericthegeek View Post
The behavior you want is to set the root's fan speed slot to address 11, and then address the 24 dimmers from 12 to 35 when you receive the Block Address PID?.
The problem domain is a little less complicated than that. The Root device has no real DMX slots, just virtual ones that represent the sub-devices, but only when the sub devices are contiguous. So:

When contiguous, Root DMX address = sub device DMX address and root foot print = sum total of sub device slots.

For example, if there are 10 sub-devices from 13 to 22, contigouosly adrressed. Root DEVICE_INFO reports DMX Address 13, footprint of 10.

Sub device 5 address is changed from 17 to 2.
The responder is no-longer contiguously adressed.
Root DEVICE_INFO reports DMX Address FFFF, footprint of 0.

The shall rule is not explicitly violated as the DMX address is the same, the footprint has changed.

Now we set the BLOCK_ADDRESS to 1
Root DEVICE_INFO reports DMX Address 1, footprint of 10.
The shall rule may be technically violated but is of no consequence to a controller, more important is that the footpring has changed which is not prohibited by the standard.

Next we set the BLOCK_ADDRESS to 2.
Root DEVICE_INFO reports DMX Address 2, footprint of 10.
The shall rule has been explicitly violated as the root DMX address has now changed.

The Idea of allowing the flexibility to remain while contiguous, is to enable the many controllers that don't really do sub-devices to change the BLOCK_ADDRESS (providing that the responder is already contguously addressed) by using the setting the root DMX Address, which I see nothing in the standard to counter...

If one is not able to track the other, it makes a nonsense of the whole scheme.
__________________
______________________________________________
Hamish Dumbreck
hamish is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
ACT_TIMER to Set messages nic123 RDM Interpretation Questions 3 April 18th, 2014 12:01 PM
Relative frequency of UID set changes to RDM messages events nomis52 RDM General Implementation Discussion 6 July 6th, 2010 10:02 PM
Sub-device response to SET/GET DMX512 start address p_richart RDM Interpretation Questions 2 September 29th, 2006 09:27 AM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:55 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.