TP3244 Controller Series - Alive or Dead?

[neil]

E1.31 is a protocol for only sending DMX universes over ethernet.
 

Maybe its all headed toward bridging protocols and maybe using E1.31 ... and then output the protocols you want, which could include DMX, HyperDMX, Pixelnet, LOR, etc.

[ɟɐsʇǝppʎ]

I'm sure your aware of RJ's stuff too, right?  Combiners and 4 port passive hubs that go along with the smart strings?

http://diylightanimation.com/index.php?topic=5245.0

I think RJ's stuff is wonderful and it meets the needs for many very well.  The issue is that it's limited in it's scope, now and it would appear, in the future, as it relates to pixel chip support.  While it's much easier to support a one chip solution, that one chip may not be the best option for all.  The other issue is that it is built on a limited support protocol - for example, it's a sure bet that LOR S3 won't support PixelNet but nearly a 100% thing that it will support native DMX (not that I plan to use LOR S3).

The TP3244 was/is a wonderful controller and it just needs a few tweaks to get it perfect based on what we learned last year.  Seems crazy to re-invent the wheel when we have a pretty pimped out wheel already.

I agree there DM, the pixel-net controller is a great controller but does suffer from limitations due to its support of only one type of pixel IC (180x series chips) and its communication from the PC being a non-standard. Im a believer in allowing choices and following standards and for me the non standard pixel-net communication limits you to what you can use as far as software support and dongle support. If they are things your not worried about then the pixel-net controller would be a good option for many.

As for the TP3244 it may not be dead, so hopefully within the next month we may hear something about that

[tng5737]

The pixelnet controllers have one big advantage - they allow distributed wiring.   The SSCs can be quite a long distance from the Hub.  This means that I can put allthe expensive hdw inside out of the weather and secured from theft or vandalism.  The only thing exposed is the wiring and cheap controllers (SSCs).   The other controllers I have seen have to be within 6 ft or so of the nodes.   Easily done for objects like mega-trees or other highly concentrated type of connection - not so good for wiring a house where I might only have 4 connections at any given location within that distance. The SSCs allow you to get 'up close and personal' to the nodes where ever you need them.
As far as tp3244 goes  - I have two of them and have been waiting for a firmware update to support the 180x nodes.  So they are fast becoming an non-issue for me. 

[David_AVD]

I have designed a small pixel driver (25 nodes) that is fed P-DMX (power and DMX) via a CAT5 cable.
 
 They are fed from a distribution PCB, much like RJ's solution.  The main difference is that the DC voltage on the CAT5 cable is much higher (24V and up) to minimise any voltage drop issues.
 
 I also have a larger pixel count version in the works.
 
 You can also chain a few of the smaller pixel driver boards together if you like.
 

[tng5737]

David, your boards look good, but aren't an option for me since I have exclusively TM180x nodes.  Great idea though!

[David_AVD]

David, your boards look good, but aren't an option for me since I have exclusively TM180x nodes.  Great idea though!

The larger PCB will possibly support TM180x.  It's purely a firmware thing.

The little one can't as it only supports 5V pixels.