![]() |
|
RDM Interpretation Questions Discussion and questions relating to interpreting and understanding the E1.20 RDM Standard. |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
![]() |
#1 |
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 11
|
![]()
I'm not sure, but I think I have found something that needs to be brought up.
(I know this sounds like a Zen koan) Should an already muted responder respond to a mute command? I believe the answer is a resounding no. Here is why: Lets say that responders a, b and c are on a universe and are being discovered. If the wire-or of the discover next responses of a&b make a valid message which looks like the response of c the system will believe it found c and then mute it. That is fine, but if a muted c responds again to a mute it will block a&b from ever being discovered. You end up in a loop and it looks like c is un-muting itself constantly. You'll think you're just discovering c over and over again. I believe a solution is for an already muted device to not respond to a mute command, and therefore it would signal that what looked like a valid discover next response is really a collision. Is this really an issue or am I missing something? |
![]() |
![]() |
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
broadcast Disvovery Mute/Unute | berntd | RDM Interpretation Questions | 2 | April 8th, 2008 10:07 PM |
Discovery Response Preamble | prwatE120 | RDM General Implementation Discussion | 0 | January 20th, 2007 12:22 AM |
Sub-device response to SET/GET DMX512 start address | p_richart | RDM Interpretation Questions | 2 | September 29th, 2006 09:27 AM |
Discovery Mute/Un mute | nic123 | RDM Interpretation Questions | 1 | June 14th, 2006 10:28 AM |