|
RDM Interpretation Questions Discussion and questions relating to interpreting and understanding the E1.20 RDM Standard. |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
|
July 28th, 2013 | #1 |
Task Group Member
Join Date: May 2010
Location: San Franciscio
Posts: 57
|
Another BLOCK_ADDRESS question
I'm busy adding responder tests for the E1.37-1 PIDs. I'm having trouble deciding what I should expect for GET DMX_BLOCK_ADDRESS in the following situation:
i) the DMX_BLOCK_ADDRESS pid is declared as supported ii) DEVICE_INFO has no sub devices declared. Clearly the sub-device footprint must be 0, but what should the base DMX address be? I would have expected 0xffff but it's not called out in the standard. Yes, it's a weird corner case, but that's what the tests are for... Simon |
July 29th, 2013 | #2 |
Task Group Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 375
|
"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. |
July 29th, 2013 | #3 | |
Task Group Member
Join Date: May 2010
Location: San Franciscio
Posts: 57
|
Quote:
Well at most it can be an advisory message, since there is nothing in the standard that enforces it (although it makes complete sense). |
|
July 30th, 2013 | #4 |
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. |
Bookmarks |
|
|