Hypothetical Vixen scenario

[jukingeo]

Hello, I have been an avid fan of Vixen for a long time and created several Christmas shows with it.   While I like the program as is, running a show does require a full computer set up and running.

Doing some reading here, it seems that the HC-8+ can be programmed to play Vixen files and output to DMX.

What I would like  to do is take this one step further and sync video to Vixen and in addition to output to DMX, also output to my Renard 16 & 24 channel lighting controllers.   Oh!  I would also like to sync servos with the audio/video too.  Finally when all this when done, I would like it to run stand alone without using a main PC.   Could this be done?

Thanx,

Geo

[JonnyMac]

Not with one board.  Each HC-8+ has just one RS-485 output.  What you could do is use two: the master would transmit data via DMX into the slave (and on to your DMX devices); the slave would echo that as Renard.  Either or both could support local dimmer or servo channels.

You could start an AP-16+ from the master using the TTL serial link

[JonnyMac]

You could send me the Vixen file for one of your larger shows? I would like to do timing tests to determine what frame rates we can achieve for very large shows.

[jukingeo]

Not with one board.  Each HC-8+ has just one RS-485 output.  What you could do is use two: the master would transmit data via DMX into the slave (and on to your DMX devices); the slave would echo that as Renard.  Either or both could support local dimmer or servo channels.

Well that is what I meant, I would use the HC-8+ as a master (which would replace the computer) and then the Renard controllers would hook up to that.   I know I would still need to use the Renard controllers as that is where the lights would connect to.

The HC-8+ has the high current outputs which I could use to switch on/off devices.  In addition if I should add DMX devices, the HC-8+ would handle that as well.

Should I add moving skulls or other animated characters, I would like servo control too.

So I would be hoping to program everything through Vixen.   The only trick is to not only have audio sync, but video sync as well.  This was the biggest drawback for me with Vixen since on it's own it cannot handle video files.

You could start an AP-16+ from the master using the TTL serial link

Yes, I kind of figured that I would need some audio support as well.  But since I do intend to get an AP-16+ anyway, I would already have it by the time I would start a project like this.   BUT as I said this is hypothetical for now.

You could send me the Vixen file for one of your larger shows? I would like to do timing tests to determine what frame rates we can achieve for very large shows.

Basically what I do with Vixen is create each musical number separately and then chain them together using the scheduler creation tool within Vixen.   So what I have would be only the length of a single song.   I been using Vixen for Christmas / Halloween for lighting control only up to now.  So I have not done anything with servos, nor have I used Vixen to program a Prop controller. I figured I would mention that to you.

I am assuming you would need the audio file that the show is based on as well, correct?

Thank You,
Geo

[JonnyMac]

Well that is what I meant, I would use the HC-8+ as a master (which would replace the computer) and then the Renard controllers would hook up to that.   I know I would still need to use the Renard controllers as that is where the lights would connect to.

In addition if I should add DMX devices, the HC-8+ would handle that as well.

Again, there is only one RS-485 output port; it can either be Renard or DMX, it cannot do both at the same time.  If you have a project with Renard and DMX devices they have to be on separate wires, and those wires need to hook up to independent transmitters; this is why I suggested two HC-8+s. The first handles DMX, the second echoes the DMX in Renard protocol.

No need to send a file. I'll gen-up a blank file and do the time calculations from it.

[jukingeo]

Again, there is only one RS-485 output port; it can either be Renard or DMX, it cannot do both at the same time.  If you have a project with Renard and DMX devices they have to be on separate wires, and those wires need to hook up to independent transmitters; this is why I suggested two HC-8+s. The first handles DMX, the second echoes the DMX in Renard protocol.

Oh, OK...I gotcha now.  You can't send DMX and Renard down the same pike and with only one port you would need two controllers.   Wow, that would put my scenario in a bit of a pickle.  I think it probably would be best to get/make a DMX converter for the Renard controllers, then I would only need one HC-8+.  That is IF and only if those converters don't put me near the price of another HC-8+.  Given that I have two Renard controllers I could see getting close to that price for the converters.  Supposedly I have heard that I could just change out the PIC controllers on my Renards and repurpose them as DMX controllers and that is inexpensive.    I had been thinking about doing this to the older 16 channel controller so I can do video shows.

No need to send a file. I'll gen-up a blank file and do the time calculations from it.

Oh, Ok.   Thank You.

[JonnyMac]

Supposedly I have heard that I could just change out the PIC controllers on my Renards and repurpose them as DMX controllers and that is inexpensive.

Yes, you can (technically, so long as someone has written the code).  The popularity of PICs is that they're cheap. Now, the Renard system is self-addressing so you would have to buy PICs programmed for a specific DMX address unless your boards also happen to have address inputs on them (most Renard boards I've seen don't).

The reason for the ability to change is that Renard and DMX are both protocols that use RS-485 hardware.  The difference is that in DMX, everyone is listening to the entire broadcast and pulls out their own channel data (this is why we have the address switch on the HC-8+). In Renard, the first controller picks off the first packet and sends everything else down the line.  In point of fact, Renard is trickier in some aspects because it has to capture everything, decode certain control bytes for values, and send any packets not belonging to it down the line.  A simple DMX device only requires a half-duplex RS-485 receiver. A Renard device requires a receiver and a transmitter, as well as logic to deal with local versus forwarded packets.

[JonnyMac]

For tech details on the two protocols, have a look at these links:
-- http://www.doityourselfchristmas.com/wiki/index.php?title=Renard#Protocol
-- http://www.theater-technisch-lab.nl/dmxen.htm

The difference is big, even though both operate on the same hardware. In Renard, packets are identified with a SYNC byte ($7E) and a packet header ($8x) followed by eight channel values (which may require more than eight bytes).  In DMX, a break signal is transmitted which syncs all receivers. After that a "universe" of 2 (start + one channel) to 512 (start + 511 channels) of bytes is transmitted.

As I've indicated, we have a DMX receiver object that is fully vetted and you can use in your projects.  Now that I have multiple HC-8+s on my desk, I will write a proper Renard program that will take advantage of the RS-485 RX and TX capabilities of the HC-8+.

[jukingeo]

Yes, you can (technically, so long as someone has written the code).  The popularity of PICs is that they're cheap. Now, the Renard system is self-addressing so you would have to buy PICs programmed for a specific DMX address unless your boards also happen to have address inputs on them (most Renard boards I've seen don't).

Well, I know that you can link boards together in a daisy chain fashion and you can access them individually, but as far as manually changing the address, that I don't know.

The reason for the ability to change is that Renard and DMX are both protocols that use RS-485 hardware.  The difference is that in DMX, everyone is listening to the entire broadcast and pulls out their own channel data (this is why we have the address switch on the HC-8+). In Renard, the first controller picks off the first packet and sends everything else down the line.

Ahhhh, that is how it works then.

  In point of fact, Renard is trickier in some aspects because it has to capture everything, decode certain control bytes for values, and send any packets not belonging to it down the line.  A simple DMX device only requires a half-duplex RS-485 receiver. A Renard device requires a receiver and a transmitter, as well as logic to deal with local versus forwarded packets.

Ok, so Renard isn't as nice as DMX, but I already have the controllers and they were pretty inexpensive to build.   So I do like the system.  But I will see if I can get DMX PIC's for one of them.  I will have to talk to the guys over at the DIYXMAS forum for that.

Thank You,

Geo

[JonnyMac]

I wrote a Renard demo for the HC-8+ today.  The first eight channels are working (tested with Vixen) but the second are not so I have to find out what's happening.  I know the boards using DMX between them so I'll verify my configuration with that, then sort out why my pass-through (part of the Renard protocol) seems not to be working.

[jukingeo]

I wrote a Renard demo for the HC-8+ today.  The first eight channels are working (tested with Vixen) but the second are not so I have to find out what's happening.  I know the boards using DMX between them so I'll verify my configuration with that, then sort out why my pass-through (part of the Renard protocol) seems not to be working.

Ok, I will be standing by for the final outcome.

Thank You,

Geo

[JonnyMac]

I posted the final two days ago -- it's in the hacking forum where it belongs.