Full show with Dig Quads?

M

mannuoye

New elf
Joined
Nov 19, 2022
Messages
8
Hi fellow hobbyists
This was the very first year I started with pixels.
Dig quads running 500 bullet pixels on roof gutters and around the lawn. 600 seed pixels for tree. Survived all the winds and rain in South Australia.
Next year I want to go big and planning to add 5000 more pixels.
Has anyone ran their show with xlights and dig quads? If yes, any lag issues?
 
So long as they're on ethernet, and you stick to around 600 pixels per output with a max of around 2.5k pixels total on an esp32, you should be perfectly fine. It's a bit of an expensive way to drive pixels however if you limit yourself to 2500 per controller.
 
Notenoughlights said:
So long as they're on ethernet, and you stick to around 600 pixels per output with a max of around 2.5k pixels total on an esp32, you should be perfectly fine. It's a bit of an expensive way to drive pixels however if you limit yourself to 2500 per controller.
Click to expand...
Thank you
I got ethernet cable going out to 4 port switch abd then to controllers. I am planning to run show directly from a tiny PC.
Expensive? You suggest getting a 16 port controller is better then getting 2 more quads?
 
Expensive yes, each quad is about 40USD with a total of 2500 pixels max before framerates get rather unsuitable, $0.016 per led to be controlled, where as a V4 Falcon board at $230USD being able to drive 1024 leds per output or 704 in expanded mode (33792 leds) that's $0.0068 per led to be controlled.
 
Notenoughlights said:
Expensive yes, each quad is about 40USD with a total of 2500 pixels max before framerates get rather unsuitable, $0.016 per led to be controlled, where as a V4 Falcon board at $230USD being able to drive 1024 leds per output or 704 in expanded mode (33792 leds) that's $0.0068 per led to be controlled.
Click to expand...
Thank you.
I will order a falcon board soon.
 
Notenoughlights said:
Expensive yes, each quad is about 40USD with a total of 2500 pixels max before framerates get rather unsuitable, $0.016 per led to be controlled, where as a V4 Falcon board at $230USD being able to drive 1024 leds per output or 704 in expanded mode (33792 leds) that's $0.0068 per led to be controlled.
Click to expand...
I am curious why you think 800kbps is different between a ESP device and and a Falcon controller? An ESP is not slower pumping out data than a Falcon controller. They all have to put out a 800kbps signal to drive ws2811.
 
MikeKrebs said:
I am curious why you think 800kbps is different between a ESP device and and a Falcon controller? An ESP is not slower pumping out data than a Falcon controller. They all have to put out a 800kbps signal to drive ws2811.
Click to expand...
Framerates. More pixels per output, the less often the esp can update them, it's the same thing with falcons but still, they're cheaper per pixel output than an esp board. Nothing about the data transmission speed.
 
Why do you think the framerate is different between the quad and the falcon? If you have specs or numbers, I am interested in seeing them. Not owning either device but following along with both, I have never seen that either has a problem running common framerates of 20 or 40 FPS.

Your point that a Falcon might be more economical is well taken if I max out the Falcon with expansion port and differential receivers. However the base $230 controller is 16 outputs for $14.75 an output and if you compare to the $52 quad (the version I would use) it is $13 an output. Not a big difference. Maxing out the Falcon (48 ports) does drop it under $10 an output with a tradeoff that if my controller has a problem, my whole small show is kaput whereas if I had 12 quads in my show and one had a problem, only 1/12th of the show would be kaput. I also agree with your intimation that having something like a 32 port Falcon under my mega tree would make more sense than 8 quads.
 
MikeKrebs said:
Why do you think the framerate is different between the quad and the falcon? If you have specs or numbers, I am interested in seeing them. Not owning either device but following along with both, I have never seen that either has a problem running common framerates of 20 or 40 FPS.

Your point that a Falcon might be more economical is well taken if I max out the Falcon with expansion port and differential receivers. However the base $230 controller is 16 outputs for $14.75 an output and if you compare to the $52 quad (the version I would use) it is $13 an output. Not a big difference. Maxing out the Falcon (48 ports) does drop it under $10 an output with a tradeoff that if my controller has a problem, my whole small show is kaput whereas if I had 12 quads in my show and one had a problem, only 1/12th of the show would be kaput. I also agree with your intimation that having something like a 32 port Falcon under my mega tree would make more sense than 8 quads.
Click to expand...
It's the fact that you'd need to buy multiple quads and be spending a significant amount more to be controlling more lights, where as having the falcon controller you've got the ability to run thousands from the one board. Also, yes there is less to go wrong, but when it goes wrong, it will be a significant portion of your show, don't forget to factor in all the enclosure housings and cost and time spent building those, to house the large quantity of quads.

There is nothing wrong with using lots of quads to run a show, it in my opinion is just less economical.
 
MikeKrebs said:
I am curious why you think 800kbps is different between a ESP device and and a Falcon controller? An ESP is not slower pumping out data than a Falcon controller. They all have to put out a 800kbps signal to drive ws2811.
Click to expand...
Further to what NEL is saying, there are a couple of factors, and it's not the WS2811 side that's the issue. The decoding of an E1.31/DDP frame, setting up there memory buffer to hold the data whilst streaming it out to the lights, and coordinating everything what that's going on.

The CPU/hardware in a dedicated controller, as well as the associated firmware is more geared to pushing maximum pixels. There's are numerous hardware acceleration/offload mechanisms that can be used, with dedicated internal timers.

The ESP device is a much more generic platform, of which most controllers use the existing modules like WT32-ETH01, nodemcu, etc, which are geared towards the hobbyist for any use. WLED is designed to run standalone with its own effects, with DDP/E1.31 being an afterthought/add-on.
ESPixelStick is a little more focused, but still it's limited by the hardware to do what it does.
 
I haven't maxed out my falcon boards - but I have maxed out my dig-quad. It can't keep up running 2520 pixels at 40fps without visible lag (at least running WLED over e1.31). You can look at my house in the ACL around Australia video at about 2:10 2023 AusChristmasLighting members around Australia - Sounds of Then (This is Australia) (Look at the top right window).

That being said -- @Notenoughlights cost comparison was a bit crap (used the base cost of the falcon while using the fully loaded port/pixel count).

In theory - the quads also give you a couple of extra Fused Power Injection points on the base board (noting the max current numbers for the overall board - but I believe 4 quads can handle more amps than 1 16-port falcon).
 
If cost per pixel port is important, Then the F48 will (mostly) win hands down.

However, there are secondary costs to consider. Centralized wiring vs a distributed data architecture. Ease of maintenance / replacement in the field. Accessibility.

I use multiple F16s and ESP devices in my show. My tune to sign is way over to one side and is across a driveway. Wireless FPP Remote is the way to go for that sign. In the yard, multiple FPPs next to an Ethernet switch plus an F16 (pre FPP remote capability) cause the cost of using the F16s to go up a bit but are still a touch less than the ESPixelStick V3 cost. Dig-Quad cost in its 8 port configuration becomes very competitive.

Point is, that which controller is best for you depends on your situation and how your show is structured.
 
Martin Mueller said:
If cost per pixel port is important, Then the F48 will (mostly) win hands down.

However, there are secondary costs to consider. Centralized wiring vs a distributed data architecture. Ease of maintenance / replacement in the field. Accessibility.
Click to expand...
Completely agree. By the time you add a power supply, enclosure, cables, and so forth, it's a lot more per pixel controlled (I estimate $20/port total for most of my configs, the ports are loaded variously, so probably $.05-$.10 per pixel controlled). But then there's the pixel, extensions, the coro/pex/frames/EMT/pipes/posts/zip ties/other materials for the props, and so on, and I choose to purchase sequences, etc.... By the time you've done all that the controller boards themselves are a small fraction of the total cost and the convenience/versatility arguments start to win out.
 
Back
Top