DMX, Renard, sACN Tester

D

DynamoBen

Super Moderator
What about a DMX/Renard/sACN (or whatever else) tester? I've been situations where I would rather use a handheld controller instead of booting my laptop or I just want to isolate a problem, this could fill both problems.

I will try to keep things through hole, but I will likely include the SMT USB parts for those that don't want to buy a prop-plug. Initially I will focus on DMX and sACN support since those are easily testable for me and then widen the data type options to Renard or others.

This tester will have an LCD with key switches for menu navigation (sorry no touch screen). In a perfect world it would both receive and transmit each of the protocols. I also plan to implement some diagnostics information for each protocol (IE byte space time, MAB time, etc).

Since this will be my first battery powered project any advice or design ideas are welcomed.
 
In my ever so humble opinion.. select your enclosure now. Design the board to match your enclosure.
I've got far too many "half done" projects because I could never get them finished enough to release.
(Plenty of nice boxes, including batter compartments, at mouser and digikey)
 
LabRat said:
In my ever so humble opinion.. select your enclosure now. Design the board to match your enclosure.
I've got far too many "half done" projects because I could never get them finished enough to release.
(Plenty of nice boxes, including batter compartments, at mouser and digikey)
Click to expand...

I was thinking about something like this, pelican makes a similar version that costs more. If that seems too big I will continue to look for cases.
 
That sounds interesting.

A feature I'd like to see, if it's early enough to get requests in?

DMX start address setting, the type where you output a 0-255 level to set the controller address.
 
Jack Stevens said:
DMX start address setting, the type where you output a 0-255 level to set the controller address.
Click to expand...

The challenge is there are a number of ways to do this, none of which follow the standard. Can someone collect all the methods and list them here so I can think about how to implement them?
 
Ahh you're thinking much more industrial than I was.

I was envisioning something in a case more like one of the HAMMOND ENCLOSURES.

I've made a few false starts on this myself. I've got a basic design around a 16F688 (because I know we tend to have them lying around),
but never made it to the stage of having the board(s) made. Again.. I failed to design to the enclosure, so the design has sat idle for months now.

Looking forward to watching this thread.
 
LabRat said:
Ahh you're thinking much more industrial than I was.

I was envisioning something in a case more like one of the HAMMOND ENCLOSURES.
Click to expand...

I think its because I really like that case but maybe I should pick an alternative case that is more accessible via digikey or mouser. Thanks for the suggestion I will continue to look into cases before I get too deep and regret it. ;)
 
DynamoBen said:
The challenge is there are a number of ways to do this, none of which follow the standard. Can someone collect all the methods and list them here so I can think about how to implement them?
Click to expand...
These are the ones I found when settling on the Sum method.

Start Address (Sum)
Start Address = Ch1 + Ch2

Start Address (Units)
Start Address = Ch1*100 + Ch2*10 +Ch3

Start Address (Modified Sum)
0 to 255
Start Address = Ch1 : Ch2=0
256 to 512
Start Address = Ch1 +256 : Ch2=1
 
Matt_Edwards said:
These are the ones I found when settling on the Sum method.

Start Address (Sum)
Start Address = Ch1 + Ch2

Start Address (Units)
Start Address = Ch1*100 + Ch2*10 +Ch3

Start Address (Modified Sum)
0 to 255
Start Address = Ch1 : Ch2=0
256 to 512
Start Address = Ch1 +256 : Ch2=1
Click to expand...

How do the devices know that what is being sent is an address and not real data? Start code > 0x00?
 
Devices typically use a "program" header/jumper/switch.

I suspect that is what we're talking about here.
 
That is my understanding. Here's a pic of what I had been working on, but haven't followed through with.
As you can see... I didn't design for the enclosure, and even neglected to include mounting holes. (silly designer)

DMX_Monitor.png
 
Most units use the Link pack / switch option. I prefer the push button switch cause I am worried about losing link pack in the garden when doing changes on the fly.
Prior to RDM, I believe JEC came up with a sequence / method that will set the Controller into address setting mode. (Not sure if this has been published.) http://response-box.com/rgblights/2007program.shtml
 
First design challenge: I would like to have one connector for Tx and another for Rx, and they need to be locked to that function. On a commercial DMX tester these functions are enforced by connector gender, the problem is an RJ45 has no polarity. Short of color, or using XLRs instead of RJ45s, I can't think of a way to make sure that the connectors don't get mixed up. Opinions?
 
DynamoBen said:
First design challenge: I would like to have one connector for Tx and another for Rx, and they need to be locked to that function.
Click to expand...
Why? just read the incoming port first before letting the user set the unit to TX. If you can read DMX or Renard, disable the TX function and issue an error message.
 
Matt_Edwards said:
Why? just read the incoming port first before letting the user set the unit to TX. If you can read DMX or Renard, disable the TX function and issue an error message.
Click to expand...

Two reasons. First I want a cable testing feature. Second I can do some interesting "man in the middle" diagnostics for troubleshooting.
 
DynamoBen said:
Two reasons. First I want a cable testing feature. Second I can do some interesting "man in the middle" diagnostics for troubleshooting.
Click to expand...
So you are now assuming I meant only one Connector. use two connectors ansd let the use decide which one is TX and Which one is RX. Before you enable TX, Enable RX and make sure the cannel is quiet.
 
Matt_Edwards said:
So you are now assuming I meant only one Connector. use two connectors ansd let the use decide which one is TX and Which one is RX. Before you enable TX, Enable RX and make sure the cannel is quiet.
Click to expand...

Actually I wasn't assuming that, what I mean is that from a hardware perspective what you are suggesting won't be an option. With that said this might not be a a set of features this community is interested in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top