Future Direction

D

DynamoBen

Super Moderator
I'm currently converting my SX relay project to the Prop. Which got me thinking about the future direction of the PropController. It seems to me adoption of the PropController is hampered by its flexibility. I'm wondering if I we should start creating single purpose boards like a DMX/Renard node, or AC dimmer, DC Dimmer or a Pixel controller. We could even leverage the power of the Propeller and make combination boards like DMX, AC Dimmer, and DC dimmer all on the same board.

I still like the idea and flexibility of the current design using daughterboards and would like to see that continue, but the standalone boards might make things more approachable for those they aren't into writing their own code. (BTW one of the big reasons I created the PropController was so people could learn how to code)

Thoughts?
 
I am in. The power of the Propeller with multiple processors on one chip make it the ideal candidate for future, higher powered dimming/lighting systems.

It is a perfect candidate for DMX controlled systems, as one cog can manage addresses while the other cogs manage dimming or pixel nodes.

Daughter boards or full up boards?....whatever the masses prefer. Personally, I like single board dimmers with 8, 16, or 32 channel output drivers that directly control the lighting effect.

My 2 cents....
Lightman
 
Personally I need a controller that I can reconfigure since I use them one way for Halloween and another for Christmas, so that concept will live on. But I see other Prop based projects here that are being quickly adopted by people but only a handful of folks use the PropController. So I see two groups, devs and users. Devs want flexibility but users want build and play. I guess I'm wondering if we should cater to the users since there is a high learning curve between the two groups?

BTW regardless of direction all of the code a schematics will continue to be open source.

lightman said:
Daughter boards or full up boards?....whatever the masses prefer. Personally, I like single board dimmers with 8, 16, or 32 channel output drivers that directly control the lighting effect.
Click to expand...

I could go as high as 128 w/o breaking a sweat.
 
Ben, to be honest, I purchased the PropController as it is a great development platform with a very very strong lighting controller bent.
I think the flexibility makes it too difficult to use as a dedicated controller.
 
Matt_Edwards said:
Ben, to be honest, I purchased the PropController as it is a great development platform with a very very strong lighting controller bent.
I think the flexibility makes it too difficult to use as a dedicated controller.
Click to expand...

+1. I have both the DMX and Ethernet version, but I think purpose built things like the E1.31 to DMX/Ren bridge is what people really want to see.
 
I guess what I'm trying to figure out is if there is a project that needs a Propeller to get it done. The Prop is very powerful and often is over kill (especially at $7 each). I have to believe there is some project or idea out there that would benefit from a Prop.

In another thread I suggested a DMX/Renard bridge but that has been done before by RPM. With that said I am building my own bridge/node which will have an additional output and could include a WIFI interface. Not sure if anyone would be interested in something like that.

Thoughts?
 
If a more dedicated design were done, you could still allow expansion capabilites with optional inexpensive dual Berg style connectors. Think Lynx Express 16 where you plug in the wireless board if desired, but in this case it could be anything. Please also consider having as much "on board"/in-field managability as possible. Using a simple 3 or 4 7 segment display, you could allow for status displays (the name of the board, firmware revision, etc), configuring simple things like DMX start address, and for kicking off test modes and/or set-up modes (all on, all off, ramp all up/down/repeat, cycle through one at a time, blink all, etc.). Although it adds a little bit of cost, the extra capability and usability it adds is seriously nice and really makes the controller (I cannot get anymore) one of the best DMX DIY setups out there. It would be nice if we could also standardize on the enclosure (like a CG-1500 which I still have quite a few of, or the CG-2000 for mounting) as that makes life really easy also. I had started a concept thread (Renard RE16) where I dicuss doing this with PIC because we can get free samples (thank you Microchip), and the programming is straight forward via the PicKits, and lots of people are familiar with them. Switching to a prop means ANOTHER set of programming tools I need to get stuff for and remember how to use. Oh- on board programming capability is nice also (why people refuse to put a penny single 6 pin Berg on their pic designs is beyond me...)

Well that is my $.02 whatever that is worth these days...

<rant over> ;-)
 
CaptKirk said:
If a more dedicated design were done, you could still allow expansion capabilities with optional inexpensive dual Berg style connectors. Think Lynx Express 16 where you plug in the wireless board if desired, but in this case it could be anything.
Click to expand...

I have no issue with this, but I'm starting to discover the community isn't as interested in learning as it once was. So too much flexibility is a bad thing because you have to write code, there is a balance between functions and capabilities for most they want functions.

Please also consider having as much "on board"/in-field manageability as possible. Using a simple 3 or 4 7 segment display, you could allow for status displays (the name of the board, firmware revision, etc), configuring simple things like DMX start address, and for kicking off test modes and/or set-up modes (all on, all off, ramp all up/down/repeat, cycle through one at a time, blink all, etc.). Although it adds a little bit of cost, the extra capability and usability it adds is seriously nice and really makes the controller (I cannot get anymore) one of the best DMX DIY setups out there.
Click to expand...

For my node project I had considered adding an LCD and switches to configure it and allow for those sorts of things and scrapped it for a webpage interface. Personally I prefer the LCD but it requires an enclosure of some sort to work well and adds some to the cost. The risk here is I design it the way I like it and no one is interested. Which is what happened when I designed the PropDimmer, its got a lot of high end features that I love but no one was really into it.

It would be nice if we could also standardize on the enclosure (like a CG-1500 which I still have quite a few of, or the CG-2000 for mounting) as that makes life really easy also.
Click to expand...

We could/should be doing this for anything that is likely to be outdoors.

Switching to a prop means ANOTHER set of programming tools I need to get stuff for and remember how to use. Oh- on board programming capability is nice also
Click to expand...

This is a double edged sword. If we add on-board programming via USB it means SMT parts or expensive modules. If we go the serial route it means you need a serial port, which is hard to find on PCs these days. If we provide a programming header you need to purchase a $20 programmer. So then what does one do? I'm indifferent I just want to know what people prefer.
 
I'm not going to bash the design of "easy to configure" but really... we should only be configuring our controllers once or twice per season. I don't see the point in spending $10-30 per board in adding a LCD, or buttons, or all of this stuff, when you can simply just reflash via ICSP or Set it up with a computer.

Maybe it's the cheapskate in me.
 
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.
 
DynamoBen said:
Personally I need a controller that I can reconfigure since I use them one way for Halloween and another for Christmas, so that concept will live on. But I see other Prop based projects here that are being quickly adopted by people but only a handful of folks use the PropController. So I see two groups, devs and users. Devs want flexibility but users want build and play. I guess I'm wondering if we should cater to the users since there is a high learning curve between the two groups?

BTW regardless of direction all of the code a schematics will continue to be open source.



I could go as high as 128 w/o breaking a sweat.
Click to expand...

I am currently a user, but want to be a devs. I can't read this site quick enought!! Learning something new EVERY DAY.
I love DIYC. Yea, I'm hooked...

Chuck P.
 
DynamoBen said:
Spin is a pretty friendly language to learn, nice to see another Propeller head in training. ;)
Click to expand...

But don't you get dizzy going 'round and 'round like that??? I fall down enough as it is... that would make it even worse for me!!! :lol:
 
DynamoBen said:
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.
Click to expand...

I would love this. One of my goals for the year is to design a DIYC tester (unless I can get somebody else to do it... Tom Sawyer anyone?). I don't know what all I want, but I do know of a few things:
* Send out Renard data (stand-alone). Test controllers via RS485 without the PC. Maybe simple ramps for a configurable amount of channels?
* Receive Renard Data - to see if a controller is repeating data and give some sort of diagnostics
* Test SSRs - Loop through your standard 1-4 channels of an SSR.
* Act as an SSR - This would be LEDs driven by a controller to test the SSR output from your controllers
* All of the aforementioned functions, but replace "Renard" with DMX/sACN (or whatever else).
 
That's a big list, I think for this tester I'm going to limit it to data only. I will most likely model it after this.

I think everything will be through hole, but I will likely include the SMT USB parts on the board 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 down the road.
 
I just want to say that as a newbie to DIY animation and these microcontrollers (but not to programming), I'm really glad to have an option which supports user programmability. I've just discovered the PropController, and do not yet know what it's capable of, but I'm interested in learning development. Everybody using Spin seems to say it's fun and powerful, so that intrigues me. (I do want to get some simple and supported controllers like Ren 24ss working for this year before going too deep into development myself - of something which might not work).

I'm speaking up in response to the question of whether some in the community are still interested in development - interest is not dead!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top