E1.20 RDM (Remote Device Management) Protocol Forums  

Go Back   E1.20 RDM (Remote Device Management) Protocol Forums > RDM Developer Forums > RDM General Implementation Discussion

RDM General Implementation Discussion General Discussion and questions relating to implementing RDM in a product.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old August 27th, 2008   #1
berntd
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 102
Default When is a different start code allowed?

Hello all
I have 2 products here that state that they both comply with RDM but when I try to detect the responder with my controller, nothing happens.

In fact, my sniffer does not even detect any RDM packets if these 2 units communicate.
I then looked at the data manually and found a start code that is not 0xCC.

Could someone please clarify when it is allowed to state RDM on a product but use a non RDM start code for all packets?

If this is permissable, then who assigns these other start codes and under what conditions?

Kind Regards
Bernt
berntd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 27th, 2008   #2
sblair
Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 419
Send a message via AIM to sblair Send a message via MSN to sblair
Default

Bernt,

It would actually help us if you could provide details on the products in question. One of the main goals of this site is to help serve as a clearinghouse for RDM compatability information and to help the Manufacturers work together to address any issues.

There is a lot of product out there that was built to draft versions of RDM. We intentionally decided to not choose the official RDM Start Code until after the Standard was finished. This has helped keep the draft versions from creating problems with the final version of the Standard.

There are no RDM police to control when someone states something is "RDM" or not.

What Start Code did you see the traffic under? 0xF0 was the prototyping Start Code we used in all the draft documents. The list of registered Start Codes can be found at: http://www.esta.org/tsp/working_grou...rnateCodes.php

Again, if you can provide specifics on the gear, then I might already have information on what protocol or version of RDM is being used.
__________________
Scott M. Blair
RDM Protocol Forums Admin
sblair is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 27th, 2008   #3
berntd
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 102
Default

Hi Scott,

I understand your point but please understand that I am somewhat restrained with what I can and can't write here in the forum. I am not allowed to mention any specific equipment details. It is not my decision but somehow I can understand it.

The start code I see is indeed 0xF0. I see it on professional equipment that is for brand new and for sale. These are not prototypes.


Does this mean that new responders should listen tyo 0xF0 and 0xCC for a start code?

When was this transition made?

Kind regards
Bernt



Quote:
Originally Posted by sblair
Bernt,

It would actually help us if you could provide details on the products in question. One of the main goals of this site is to help serve as a clearinghouse for RDM compatability information and to help the Manufacturers work together to address any issues.

There is a lot of product out there that was built to draft versions of RDM. We intentionally decided to not choose the official RDM Start Code until after the Standard was finished. This has helped keep the draft versions from creating problems with the final version of the Standard.

There are no RDM police to control when someone states something is "RDM" or not.

What Start Code did you see the traffic under? 0xF0 was the prototyping Start Code we used in all the draft documents. The list of registered Start Codes can be found at: http://www.esta.org/tsp/working_grou...rnateCodes.php

Again, if you can provide specifics on the gear, then I might already have information on what protocol or version of RDM is being used.

Last edited by berntd; August 27th, 2008 at 09:33 PM.
berntd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 27th, 2008   #4
sblair
Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 419
Send a message via AIM to sblair Send a message via MSN to sblair
Default

Bernt,

There is a lot of product out there that shipped using draft versions of RDM. The problem is that there were a number of different draft versions that all had radical differences between them at the protocol level. Simply put, they are incompatible at many levels besides just the Start Code itself. That is the risk of shipping product with draft versions. I spoke out on the issue as much as I could so that users would be aware of the situation of buying "RDM" product at that time.

I understand your situation of not being able to mention the specific gear on here. If you would like to message me privately on here then I can probably put you directly in touch with the right person at that manufacturer to speak with.

The final version of RDM was actually published in June 2006. Companies that had adopted the very early draft versions in their own products and had it in a lot of their products by the time the Standard released are the ones that have the most challenge as they have to update their code in a lot of products all at once.
__________________
Scott M. Blair
RDM Protocol Forums Admin
sblair is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 27th, 2008   #5
berntd
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 102
Default

Hi Scott,

I sent you a Privete Message.

Regards
Bernt
berntd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 28th, 2008   #6
prwatE120
Task Group Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 180
Default Educating Manufacturers

Hi

I am responsible for the RDM demo areas at both PLASA and LDI.

These displays specifically aim to show interoperability between multiple manufacturers and iron out areas of differing interpretation of the standard.

If you (or Scott) contact me off list with the details, I will also try and educate the companies concerned.

Whilst there are a small number of products shipped by Howard Eaton Lighting that used the draft RDM start code, we made no claims that they were compliant with the final standard, and any customer is welcome to contact us for an appropriate upgrade.



Peter Willis
prwatE120 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 16th, 2008   #7
prwatE120
Task Group Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 180
Default

Berntd

I spoke to the manufacturer concerned at PLASA, without referencing yiur specific report. They are aware that a number of their products have shipped (and are still shipping) with code that follows one of the drafts of the standard rather than the ANSI release. Such products generally allow firmware updates and they are working towards ANSI compliant code for these. I suggest you contact them directly to register for new firmware when it becomes available.

Peter Willis
prwatE120 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

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
Sub-device response to SET/GET DMX512 start address p_richart RDM Interpretation Questions 2 September 29th, 2006 10:27 AM
Slot Label Code anstein RDM General Implementation Discussion 1 August 10th, 2006 03:06 PM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:53 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.