|
RDM Interpretation Questions Discussion and questions relating to interpreting and understanding the E1.20 RDM Standard. |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
June 25th, 2013 | #1 |
Member
|
DMX_BLOCK_ADDRESS (Set)
In E1.37 Section 3.3, the final statement reads:
This message shall not have any effect on the DMX512 Start Address for the root device, only the sub-devices. Any of you wise folk out there able to enlighten me on the rationale of this statement? I have a fundamental problem with this, in as far as that root devices, when contiguosly addressed, may not be represented on the root device without falling fowl of this directive. The upshot of this, is that any responder implementing Block Addressing will undoubtedly hit the otherwise avoidable limitations of many controllers. Take into account also, as was discussed at the last plugfest in April, it was suggested that sub-devices* do not have to support DEVICE_INFO. If any one can't see where I'm going with this, I can elaborate... *Edited, did read root-device
__________________
______________________________________________ Hamish Dumbreck Last edited by hamish; June 25th, 2013 at 12:28 PM. Reason: referential error to root-device |
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 |