View Full Version : Ren-C and RJ's DMX-Grinch Converter
08-01-2007, 05:45 PM
The other day I noticed that the pinout for the PIC16F627 (on the Ren-C board) and the PIC that RJ is using for his DMX-Grinch converter are basically the same. The pin count is the same, the power pins are in the same location, the oscillator pins are in the same location, and the serial I/O pins are in the same location on both PICs.
08-02-2007, 03:30 AM
This is a good thing? Should the designs be standardised to the 627?
After talking with Phil last night I understand what he means. He is wondering weither we could marry the two projects firmware using the 18f1220 chip and have a DMX ren-c. Sort of a DMX-c , I think it can be done but wonder if the effort is worth it as I have only had a few people intereted in DMX so far. Some of the more technical people see the benifit of going to it as a standard but I think the cost of a DMX box is preventing most from considering it. That's why I proposed a DIY'er DMX box but with no interest I have to spend time on other things. Otherwise since I don't need it I would just be spending time on something no one wants.
08-02-2007, 12:05 PM
Sorry RJ I disagree...I would suspect (myself included) taht we were waiting for more info to be available to compare costs.The c project does everything anyone would want and is more inline with the LOR and D-Light projects.It's an all in one wonder.So adding DMX to this all in one wonder would be a valuable addition once people start to understand it better.I think it's all based around the education rather then anything else.While true DMX does cost more initionally but in the long run it gives greater flexablity for years to come.I also agree with DynamoBens idea of having a standard controller network available that is tried and tested.So much effort has gone into the OLSEN and the RENARD controllers that this new Renard c idea moulds them together in a way no one would have dreamed of before.PLus the added benifit is the cost factor..No one has to worry about changing things around to build a new board.This one can do it all in one package.Only other thing I think but be a considerable idea is making a stand alone project for people who do not have the luxury of having multipal computers to run lights.If we could come up with a memory system that is able to be loaded on the fly and modified on the fly for programing ease and you simply let it run off a timer for start up and shut down I think that is the only other way to go rather then waste time on different designs...This is the design that we offer kinda deal..Just like the way LOR does it and D-Light does it...Only other thing to add is more channels and show people how that is done.With DMX it becomes an easier task but with current methods it becomes more difficult...The real benifit I see with DMX is that you can assign addresses to each box.Which in turn makes next years set up much easier cause you could simply just modifiy the sequences you had the year before if you are running a few of the same songs.Simply adding to an existing sequence is pretty easy.So you simply assign an addy to that new box you added and your good to go with programing...The way I've programed Vixen for myself for this year is to have 2 sequences running at the same time...One simply being an interlude taht showes off all the lights while another has a program running for my reindeer to move and Santa to wave...So as you see it makes Vixen even more flexable with the use of DMX.So your research is benifical we simply want more ifo from you and BEN about it before we start making any moves...So please keep going as I'm all ears(eyes) waiting to hear and read about more..
08-02-2007, 02:13 PM
Maybe it's just me but .... huh?
08-02-2007, 03:12 PM
It's not just you.
08-02-2007, 03:37 PM
What seems to be the problem with what I wrote guys ???
08-02-2007, 08:10 PM
Hey Phil what I was refering to is simply this...Why should someone stop doing testing and building on something just cause he percieves there is no interest due to costs.I thinik he should keep going cause sooner or later interest will be there.RJ has the right idea and I for one am interested in the DIY dmx box.Only cause of the flexablity it offers in design,set-up and adapablity to other gear.So I was simply stating he should keep going with his testing and building of a DIY dmx box.I tried to list what I feel are strong benifits.If more people understannd dmx then maybe more might use it as a way of interconnect and set-up rather then using serial port or parrellel port connections.ONly point I was trying to make...Hope taht clears it up.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.10 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.