Future Direction

**DynamoBen** · 12-12-2011, 01:59 PM

I'm currently converting my SX relay project to the Prop. Which got me thinking about the future direction of the PropController. It seems to me adoption of the PropController is hampered by its flexibility. I'm wondering if I we should start creating single purpose boards like a DMX/Renard node, or AC dimmer, DC Dimmer or a Pixel controller. We could even leverage the power of the Propeller and make combination boards like DMX, AC Dimmer, and DC dimmer all on the same board.

I still like the idea and flexibility of the current design using daughterboards and would like to see that continue, but the standalone boards might make things more approachable for those they aren't into writing their own code. (BTW one of the big reasons I created the PropController was so people could learn how to code)

Thoughts?

**lightman** · 12-12-2011, 02:13 PM

I am in. The power of the Propeller with multiple processors on one chip make it the ideal candidate for future, higher powered dimming/lighting systems.

It is a perfect candidate for DMX controlled systems, as one cog can manage addresses while the other cogs manage dimming or pixel nodes.

Daughter boards or full up boards?....whatever the masses prefer. Personally, I like single board dimmers with 8, 16, or 32 channel output drivers that directly control the lighting effect.

My 2 cents....
Lightman

**DynamoBen** · 12-12-2011, 02:16 PM

Personally I need a controller that I can reconfigure since I use them one way for Halloween and another for Christmas, so that concept will live on. But I see other Prop based projects here that are being quickly adopted by people but only a handful of folks use the PropController. So I see two groups, devs and users. Devs want flexibility but users want build and play. I guess I'm wondering if we should cater to the users since there is a high learning curve between the two groups?

BTW regardless of direction all of the code a schematics will continue to be open source.

Originally Posted by lightman

Daughter boards or full up boards?....whatever the masses prefer. Personally, I like single board dimmers with 8, 16, or 32 channel output drivers that directly control the lighting effect.

I could go as high as 128 w/o breaking a sweat.

**Matt_Edwards** · 12-12-2011, 05:11 PM

Ben, to be honest, I purchased the PropController as it is a great development platform with a very very strong lighting controller bent.
I think the flexibility makes it too difficult to use as a dedicated controller.

**DynamoBen** · 12-12-2011, 05:26 PM

Originally Posted by Matt_Edwards

I think the flexibility makes it too difficult to use as a dedicated controller.

So are you suggesting that dedicate purpose boards would make more sense moving forward?

**chilloutdocdoc** · 12-14-2011, 12:55 AM

Originally Posted by Matt_Edwards

Ben, to be honest, I purchased the PropController as it is a great development platform with a very very strong lighting controller bent.
I think the flexibility makes it too difficult to use as a dedicated controller.

+1. I have both the DMX and Ethernet version, but I think purpose built things like the E1.31 to DMX/Ren bridge is what people really want to see.

**Matt_Edwards** · 12-14-2011, 06:24 AM

Originally Posted by DynamoBen

So are you suggesting that dedicate purpose boards would make more sense moving forward?

Yes.

**DynamoBen** · 12-14-2011, 12:03 PM

Any thoughts on which dedicated boards we should create?

**DynamoBen** · 01-03-2012, 10:38 PM

I guess what I'm trying to figure out is if there is a project that needs a Propeller to get it done. The Prop is very powerful and often is over kill (especially at $7 each). I have to believe there is some project or idea out there that would benefit from a Prop.

In another thread I suggested a DMX/Renard bridge but that has been done before by RPM. With that said I am building my own bridge/node which will have an additional output and could include a WIFI interface. Not sure if anyone would be interested in something like that.

Thoughts?

**CaptKirk** · 01-03-2012, 10:54 PM

If a more dedicated design were done, you could still allow expansion capabilites with optional inexpensive dual Berg style connectors. Think Lynx Express 16 where you plug in the wireless board if desired, but in this case it could be anything. Please also consider having as much "on board"/in-field managability as possible. Using a simple 3 or 4 7 segment display, you could allow for status displays (the name of the board, firmware revision, etc), configuring simple things like DMX start address, and for kicking off test modes and/or set-up modes (all on, all off, ramp all up/down/repeat, cycle through one at a time, blink all, etc.). Although it adds a little bit of cost, the extra capability and usability it adds is seriously nice and really makes the controller (I cannot get anymore) one of the best DMX DIY setups out there. It would be nice if we could also standardize on the enclosure (like a CG-1500 which I still have quite a few of, or the CG-2000 for mounting) as that makes life really easy also. I had started a concept thread (Renard RE16) where I dicuss doing this with PIC because we can get free samples (thank you Microchip), and the programming is straight forward via the PicKits, and lots of people are familiar with them. Switching to a prop means ANOTHER set of programming tools I need to get stuff for and remember how to use. Oh- on board programming capability is nice also (why people refuse to put a penny single 6 pin Berg on their pic designs is beyond me...)

Well that is my $.02 whatever that is worth these days...

<rant over> ;-)