Author Topic: Difference between Falcon Pixelnet Controller and E682  (Read 12433 times)

Offline mkozik1

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Join Date: Jul 2013
  • Location: Monroe, GA
  • Posts: 104
  • Kudos: 1
Difference between Falcon Pixelnet Controller and E682
« on: August 13, 2013, 06:04:57 PM »
Probably a dumb question, but what is the difference between the Falcon Pixelnet Controller and the SanDevice E682?  With the E682 out there, what has prompted the need for another board?  I just finished my E682 a few weeks ago and now find this one so wanting to make sure I am doing this right.

Thanks in advance for your help.

- Mark
- Mark

Offline smeighan

  • Developer
  • ******
  • Join Date: Mar 2013
  • Location: Highlands Ranch, Colorado
  • Posts: 1,035
  • Kudos: 11
    • Nutcracker123
Re: Difference between Falcon Pixelnet Controller and E682
« Reply #1 on: August 13, 2013, 06:19:51 PM »
Probably a dumb question, but what is the difference between the Falcon Pixelnet Controller and the SanDevice E682?  With the E682 out there, what has prompted the need for another board?  I just finished my E682 a few weeks ago and now find this one so wanting to make sure I am doing this right.

Thanks in advance for your help.

- Mark

there are 4 main boards for pixels

E682(~$180)   E1.31 => 16 strings out
p12r (~$180)  E1.31 => 12 strings out
FPD (~$115)    E1.31 => up to 300' of Pixelenet => Falcon-16 (~$95) => 16 strings out.
(all prices for assembled boards)
DLA (Etherdongle, Active hubs, Zeus)

Say i will have 48 strings.

I will need
a) (3) E682, = $540   
LPD6803,D705,WS2801,
TM180x,TLS3001,
CYT3005,GE Color Effects, WS2811, LPD880x, 981X, 16716, and MORE pixel types.

b) (4) p12r   = $720
Initial support of WS2801, ws2811, LPD6803, and TM180x

c) (1) FPD, (3) Falcon-16 = $400
180x, ws2811 both 5v and 12v

d) (1) Etherdonge($100 kit) => (3) Activehub($80 kit)  => (48) SSCs($10 ea, kit)  = $740.
Only 180x pixels

e) (1) Etherdonge($100 kit) => (3) Zeus($45 kit)  = $235.
180x or 12v ws2811 pixels

Only the FPD has pixelnet which is what i think Dave was going for. Also Dave wanted to control the input into his Falcon-16 boards.

you can use any of these 5 choices for your hardware
Sean
Littleton, CO Latest releases http://nutcracker123.com/nutcracker/releases xLights/Nutcracker Forum http://nutcracker123.com/forum/index.php Facebook [url=https://www.facebook.com/groups

Offline mkozik1

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Join Date: Jul 2013
  • Location: Monroe, GA
  • Posts: 104
  • Kudos: 1
Re: Difference between Falcon Pixelnet Controller and E682
« Reply #2 on: August 13, 2013, 06:37:58 PM »
Thanks Sean - But I still don't understand the need for an additional controller.  It appears, based on your information, that the E682 can utilize far more pixel types than the F16 and the same amount of output.  The F16 requires the FPD (whatever that is - Tried to find additional info on this) whereas the E682 does not.  U-Build-It pricing comes out a little less with the E682 from what I can see.  Not trying to be argumentative, just trying to understand !!

« Last Edit: August 13, 2013, 06:49:05 PM by mkozik1 »

Offline bajadahl

  • Supporting Member
  • ******
  • Join Date: Jul 2013
  • Location: Austin, TX
  • Posts: 228
  • Kudos: 2
Re: Difference between Falcon Pixelnet Controller and E682
« Reply #3 on: August 13, 2013, 06:59:56 PM »
Mark -

I've been trying to come up with a good way to respond to your question.  I guess the big difference is pixelnet.  Pixelnet (from my understanding) is a custom protocol developed by the DIYC community.  I am not sure if RJ gets all the credit or not but regardless pixelnet allows for very high channel counts out of one piece of hardware.  I don't remember the exact number so I won't say it here.  The E682 only supports DMX/E1.31.  which is 512 channels per universe (510 usable)  the E682 supports 7 Universes in Multicast or 12 in Unicast.  Anyway - that I believe is the big difference. 

Your other question is why - I think that's harder to answer but the main reason is because without people constantly striving to do it better, simpler, or more efficient the the hobby would get stagnate.  And we'd all be stuck with no choices.  I think Sean got it right when he said Dave just want's to design the whole system from his perspective and I applaud him for that.   

With all that said (those that know me can attest) I am heavily invested in the San Devices boards and I think they are the best.  I have 8 E681's and 2 E604's now.  They are great boards and they will serve my purpose.  However, I am all in on the Pi Player and I can't wait to give it a spin with the E681's.

I think you should be very happy with your E682 purchase and put it to good use.  Also, support the guys pushing the hobby forward even if its not the right solution for you.  You never know when someone going to make a new break through that we all benefit from.  Last year all the talk was Sean's nutcracker..... This year I think it just might be the Pi Player.

Good Luck,
Alan

Offline smeighan

  • Developer
  • ******
  • Join Date: Mar 2013
  • Location: Highlands Ranch, Colorado
  • Posts: 1,035
  • Kudos: 11
    • Nutcracker123
Re: Difference between Falcon Pixelnet Controller and E682
« Reply #4 on: August 13, 2013, 07:07:24 PM »
Thanks Sean - But I still don't understand the need for an additional controller.  It appears, based on your information, that the E682 can utilize far more pixel types than the F16 and the same amount of output.  The F16 requires the FPD (whatever that is - Tried to find additional info on this) whereas the E682 does not.  U-Build-It pricing comes out a little less with the E682 from what I can see.  Not trying to be argumentative, just trying to understand !!

E682 and p12r embed the E1.31 controller on every card. that extra cost will be carried as you increase strings.

In the FPD=>Falcoln-16 or the Etherdongle=>Zeus, the E1.31 only happens once.

I may have 64 strings of lights this season. E682,p12r will have (4) E1.31 controllers, you will also need a hub to plug the four into.

FPD will only have one E1.31 input.

Further, I will have the FPD next to my computer(pi player) in the basement. All of the actual drivers for strings will be located throughout the yard.

Relative to the cost of the lights ANY of the above controllers will work and the cost difference will not be enough to really matter,

So why did I choose FPD, Falcon? Because I saw it run 32K channels with no lag. I have no experience if at that higher channel count i can get the same response out of E682's.

I dont really care about Pixelnet. I just want something that is reliable. If you have E682's  , they are an awesone controller. They also support more string types than any other board out there.

thanks
sean

Offline mkozik1

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Join Date: Jul 2013
  • Location: Monroe, GA
  • Posts: 104
  • Kudos: 1
Re: Difference between Falcon Pixelnet Controller and E682
« Reply #5 on: August 13, 2013, 07:45:27 PM »
Thanks to the both of you for your responses, I appreciate it.  Alan, I could not agree more in supporting the hobby and moving it forward.  I started out with DLA as that was my first look see into the hobby, have several of RJ's boards and like what they do.  Never saw myself doing 4000+ channels and really did not care for the (2) part pixel layout so that is why I sent with the E682.  Now seeing the F16 here, just wanted to get a feel for the differences.  Same goes for the software being developed, of course nothing comes close to Sean's  :P but there are choices and everyone feels differently, which is great. 

Again, thanks for chiming in and helping me out.  It's what I Love about this community !!

Take care,
 

Offline MyKroFt

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Join Date: Mar 2013
  • Location: NW Montana
  • Posts: 1,428
  • Kudos: 57
Re: Difference between Falcon Pixelnet Controller and E682
« Reply #6 on: August 13, 2013, 07:45:59 PM »
One thing to keep in mind.....

the F-16 was conceived before the Pi Player.  We were going to the DLA's Etherdongle to run it, but ran into some lag problems.  So we started designing the FPP.

Then FPP is designed to be a all in one type unit, don't tie up my computer solution.  With out the Pi expansion board it will send E.131 to any compatible device.  The expansion board outputs PixelNet and DMX.  And I "THINK" all three can be used at the same time, I have to ask David about that - I don't remember.

The nice thing about pixelnet protocol is the channel count - 4 X 4096 = gives you 16,384 channels available.  Also if you use the pixelnet hubs, they inject power to end device SSC controllers spread through out the yard using simple cat5 cable.  The F-16 was primary designed for Mega Trees and Matrix applications - lots of channels in a single location. 

A normal DLA SSC can only control 128 nodes (128x3 channels).  The F-16 is just a higher density unit (170 x 3 X 16) designed to be at a single location.

Mine will sit at the base of my MegaTree in a single box, vs using 16 indv pixelnet ssc controllers laying in the yard - neatness is what I call it.

Hope that explains the difference a little better.

Myk

Offline mkozik1

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Join Date: Jul 2013
  • Location: Monroe, GA
  • Posts: 104
  • Kudos: 1
Re: Difference between Falcon Pixelnet Controller and E682
« Reply #7 on: August 13, 2013, 08:03:56 PM »
I agree, that is a MUCH cleaner install and far less likely to have water problems!!

Again, thanks for the clarification.

Offline Skunberg

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Join Date: Aug 2013
  • Location:
  • Posts: 200
  • Kudos: 0
Re: Difference between Falcon Pixelnet Controller and E682
« Reply #8 on: August 13, 2013, 08:36:48 PM »
This has to do with the equipment you have and your background. If your from the Renard group your most likely to use the e682. If your from dal the lynx fits you. If your from down under group the P12 will be your direction. This is a general rule. As the best support for the devices are from these places. So if your good enough to get by on your own you can use anything or develope you own. If your barely scratching your way thru you'll need support from others. Just my thoughts. Ymmv.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk 2


Offline charleskerr

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Jun 2013
  • Location: Oak Hill, VA
  • Posts: 87
  • Kudos: 0
Re: Difference between Falcon Pixelnet Controller and E682
« Reply #9 on: August 14, 2013, 02:55:38 PM »
There are other boards for pixels, so I wouldn't say there are "four main".  I would say there are four large capacity boards for pixels.

Just trying to be accurate for those smaller suppliers of small pixel controllers and new users.
One is never too old to learn

Offline smeighan

  • Developer
  • ******
  • Join Date: Mar 2013
  • Location: Highlands Ranch, Colorado
  • Posts: 1,035
  • Kudos: 11
    • Nutcracker123
Re: Difference between Falcon Pixelnet Controller and E682
« Reply #10 on: August 14, 2013, 05:47:03 PM »
There are other boards for pixels, so I wouldn't say there are "four main".  I would say there are four large capacity boards for pixels.

Just trying to be accurate for those smaller suppliers of small pixel controllers and new users.

yep, there is a new pixel controller from phil short.. < $20 gets you 170 rgb pixels being driven with 115k baud usb conncection
The co-op is still open http://doityourselfchristmas.com/forums/showthread.php?27410-Renard-PX1-Pixel-Controller-Group-Buy-quot-OPEN-quot

there is seasonal entertainment rainbow brain http://seasonalentertainmentllc.com/rainbowbrain.htm

On the spreadsheet i made i had 7 choices, now 8 with phil short's new pixel controller for renard.


The spreadsheet is on the bottom of the releases page

http://nutcracker123.com/nutcracker/releases/

it is under "RGB Configurator"

Each has its own plus and minus features.


Offline mindtrik

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Join Date: Aug 2014
  • Location:
  • Posts: 103
  • Kudos: 0
Re: Difference between Falcon Pixelnet Controller and E682
« Reply #11 on: March 13, 2015, 04:44:17 AM »
I know this thread is old.  However, it's not as simple to compare controllers using strings.  For instance, I put 5 strings on one output of a 682.  Total number of universes would be a good comparison as well as the limitation on each connector.

Offline gadgetsmith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Apr 2014
  • Location: Charlton, NY
  • Posts: 989
  • Kudos: 14
Re: Difference between Falcon Pixelnet Controller and E682
« Reply #12 on: March 13, 2015, 05:49:27 AM »
There is a new, much more comprehensive, list that Sean has put together just this week.

http://www.falconchristmas.com/forum/index.php?topic=2310.0

 

Back to top