DDP to E1.31
- Thread starter Santacarl
- Start date
MartinMueller2003
Supporting Member
The ethernet interfaces on the f16 are a small switch, that means it is not a daisy chain configuration. It is a network extension just like adding any other switch
Thanks Martin,
I was referring to "daisy chain" as in next down the line. That's a holdover from my Renard beginnings! Haha....I wasn't sure if the FPP would send/pass E1.31 data to the F16v3 since XL and the FPP know that the F16v3 is set for DDP.
But based on your reply I think I hear you saying that the "Network" has both E1.31 and DDP data transiting the net simultaneously. So, if that's the case, my E682 should receive E1.31 because its connection just happens to be located on the F16v3 board? Please check my logic.... Networks baffle me and I often make a mess of anything network related. Haha.
ChiefWarrant
Supporting Member
@Santacarl,
Your logic is correct. The E682 will have its own IP address, just like the Falcon. The Falcon’s mini switch ignores any E1.31 data not intended for it and simply passes those data frames along to the next device in your daisy chain without alteration. The E682 then recognizes the data meant for it, reads it, and processes it accordingly.
"Chief"....thanks for the verification.
MartinMueller2003
Supporting Member
Personal opinion: Then choose DDP. It is FAR lighter on your network for the same amount of show data transferred. It is way easier to use. If there is a choice, I recommend DDP. (what a great setup for the line: 9 out of 10 lighting geeks choose DDP). 
I actually thought about doing that but I don't see any great rush by those with more network prowess doing that. Maybe they are but I see a great deal of forum talk inferring that they use DPP but I don't see much talk about multiple E1.31 use. Given that I decided to run DPP to my controllers that can do so. I just don't know enough about networks to know if mixing E1.31 and DPP on the same network is more efficient than running multiple E1.31's.
MartinMueller2003
Supporting Member
Yes you can mix E1.31 and DDP on the same network. The only issue is that E1.31 has more wasted network overhead than DDP. Other than that, they co-exist very nicely. I would not mix E1.31 and DDP on the same controller though (dont think any of them allow that, but it would work).
The only reason I can think of to run both on the same controller MIGHT be if you want to run Renards and pixels on the same controller? But I'm just guessing....probably showing my lack of knowledge...Haha.
ChiefWarrant
Supporting Member
You’d probably be surprised at how little network “space” show data actually uses. Even the most extreme setups would struggle to max out a wired connection — you’d need to push around 400 universes before Ethernet bandwidth itself became a real issue. (Wireless is a different story — much easier to overwhelm there.) Here's ChatGPT response.I just don't know enough about networks to know if mixing E1.31 and DPP on the same network is more efficient than running multiple E1.31's.
Rule of thumb for E1.31 (sACN) over UDP:
- 1 DMX universe (510–512 channels) @ 44 fps = ~0.24–0.25 Mbps
- That’s ~170 RGB pixels per universe
- Bandwidth scales linearly with universes × frame rate
- 10 universes @ 44 fps ≈ 2.5 Mbps
- 25 universes @ 44 fps ≈ 6.2 Mbps
- 100 universes @ 44 fps ≈ 25 Mbps
- 1,000 pixels (~6 universes) → ~1.3–1.5 Mbps
- 5,000 pixels (~30 universes) → ~6.5–7.5 Mbps
- 10,000 pixels (~59 universes) → ~13–15 Mbps
- Multicast vs unicast doesn’t change payload much (just who gets it).
- 100BASE-T is plenty for most shows; the controller usually bottlenecks first.
- Dropping frame rate (e.g., 20–25 fps) roughly halves the bandwidth.
- Wi-Fi controllers (ESP-based) handle far fewer universes reliably than wired.
DDP is more efficient — about 15–30% less traffic for the same pixel count and FPS, because it avoids the per-universe overhead.
- 1,000 pixels → ~1.0–1.2 Mbps with DDP (vs 1.3–1.5 Mbps E1.31)
- 5,000 pixels → ~5–6 Mbps (vs 6.5–7.5 Mbps)
- 10,000 pixels → ~10–12 Mbps (vs 13–15 Mbps)
Bottom line: for wired, you’ll run out of controller horsepower or pixel power distribution long before you run out of network bandwidth.Thanks "CWO"....I'm just making a logical guess!You’d probably be surprised at how little network “space” show data actually uses. Even the most extreme setups would struggle to max out a wired connection — you’d need to push around 400 universes before Ethernet bandwidth itself became a real issue. (Wireless is a different story — much easier to overwhelm there.) Here's ChatGPT response.
Rule of thumb for E1.31 (sACN) over UDP:
Quick reference:
- 1 DMX universe (510–512 channels) @ 44 fps = ~0.24–0.25 Mbps
- That’s ~170 RGB pixels per universe
- Bandwidth scales linearly with universes × frame rate
Pixel counts (RGB, 3 channels/pixel @ 40–44 fps):
- 10 universes @ 44 fps ≈ 2.5 Mbps
- 25 universes @ 44 fps ≈ 6.2 Mbps
- 100 universes @ 44 fps ≈ 25 Mbps
Notes:
- 1,000 pixels (~6 universes) → ~1.3–1.5 Mbps
- 5,000 pixels (~30 universes) → ~6.5–7.5 Mbps
- 10,000 pixels (~59 universes) → ~13–15 Mbps
DDP vs. E1.31:
- Multicast vs unicast doesn’t change payload much (just who gets it).
- 100BASE-T is plenty for most shows; the controller usually bottlenecks first.
- Dropping frame rate (e.g., 20–25 fps) roughly halves the bandwidth.
- Wi-Fi controllers (ESP-based) handle far fewer universes reliably than wired.
DDP is more efficient — about 15–30% less traffic for the same pixel count and FPS, because it avoids the per-universe overhead.
- 1,000 pixels → ~1.0–1.2 Mbps with DDP (vs 1.3–1.5 Mbps E1.31)
- 5,000 pixels → ~5–6 Mbps (vs 6.5–7.5 Mbps)
- 10,000 pixels → ~10–12 Mbps (vs 13–15 Mbps)
Wow....that's great information. That post should be pinned some place because I looked high and low for something to help understand bandwidth on these shows. Now I just need to look at the controllers to make sure they can handle the data dump to them.
SC
ChiefWarrant
Supporting Member
Same here — I run everything on DDP now. It really simplifies setup and keeps things much cleaner.Personal opinion: Then choose DDP. It is FAR lighter on your network for the same amount of show data transferred. It is way easier to use. If there is a choice, I recommend DDP. (what a great setup for the line: 9 out of 10 lighting geeks choose DDP).
MartinMueller2003
Supporting Member
The choice of E1.31 vs DDP is not related to the use of pixels vs AC or DC lighting channels. As a matter of fact, both DDP and E1.31 were developed for individual channel devices (like renards) and have no intrinsic support for pixels. Using E1.31 for pixel transfer is possible by accepting some deficiencies in the E1.31 protocol, such as 510 channels used instead of 512, odd universe mapping to completely fill a pixel port etc.The only reason I can think of to run both on the same controller MIGHT be if you want to run Renards and pixels on the same controller? But I'm just guessing....probably showing my lack of knowledge...Haha.
ChiefWarrant
Supporting Member
Controller | Max Pixels | Channels | Bandwidth @ 44 FPS | Bandwidth @ 20 FPS
------------------- | ---------- | -------- | ----------------- | -----------------
Falcon F16v3 | 16,384 | 49,152 | ~17.3 Mbps | ~7.9 Mbps
SandDevice E682 | 6,400 | 19,200 | ~6.8 Mbps | ~3.1 Mbps
Combined | 22,784 | 68,352 | ~24.1 Mbps | ~11 Mbps
Takeaways:
- Well under Cat5e (100 Mbps) capacity.
- DDP efficiently handles pixel data.
- PC/FPP combo mainly manages rendering and timing; network bandwidth isn’t the bottleneck.
ChiefWarrant
Supporting Member
Fun Fact: The F16v3 can run Renard straight off the board. It just uses the channels you assign to it from either DPP or E1.31. As long as your show profile and the board configuration matches, it works. This Rendard direct support is one of the things I always liked about Falcons.
So, if my F16v3 has an expansion board the channel number is potentially doubled. What happens to the Bandwidth?
Oops....misspoke....the number of outputs, not channels, is potentially doubled....per the user manual...Oops! So I'm guessing bandwidth isn't impacted by an expansion board.
ChiefWarrant
Supporting Member
Adding an expansion board to the Falcon doesn’t increase the total channel capacity. The max channel count stays the same — it just gets divided across more ports.