Printable View
Hi SimonQuote:
Originally Posted by p1t8ull
I saw the post from Andy Faulkner in Romania in the Pangolin forums, but that sounds like overkill (and expensive) for what I wanted.
This was just for self satisfaction really, if it's a 'no goer' it's not a problem, I just thought it would be cool to try if anyone had done a very simple version and got it working.
Looking forward to meeting you again at UKLEM :)
Cheers
Jem
Interesting project Jem, no reason why we can't have a play and see what we can get working on the 3rd... I have a couple of WAPS I'll chuck in the car, and Insanity dabbles in this netwokythingy stuff too ;)
It'll be good to meet up again :) these last few weeks are really d r a g g i n g !
Wicked...
Thanks for that. It's a bit like a young kid waiting for Christmas... The excitement's building :D
Cheers
Jem
Hi Jem,
We have a number of users who are using wireless networks with QM2000.NET. People write to me about this about once a month. Unfortunately, due to the many other emails I get each day, I don't commit to memory the exact devices or methods that they use.
However, whenever people tell me about how they are doing it, or others ask me how to do it, I direct them to the NETWORKING section of our forum. I guess there must be some good information there posted by people who are using wireless networks with the QM2000.NET. You can see the forum here:
http://www.pangolin.com/ubb/postlist...t=0&Board=UBB5
However, I would like to inject an editorial comment here. When the QM2000 is inserted into the PCI slot of a computer, that's about as reliable as you can get. When you remove it from the PCI slot and put it in a network box, you inherently inject two points of vulnerability -- the network cable (which can be cut, ran over, unplugged, etc.) and the extra power cord to the QM2000.NET (which is often on a separate circuit). When you use a wireless network, you inject yet another point of vulnerability. One of the things that people really like about the Pangolin system is that it's rock solid. It's used by professionals all around the world. But with each additional point of vulnerability, it would make me nervous if I were a show producer. I guess each person has to decide for themselves how much reliability can be traded off for convenience, but if it were me, I would err on the side of conservatism...
Best regards,
William Benner
Thanks for the reply Bill, no need to be nervous on this occasion as I wouldn't even consider doing a commercial show over wireless, not until there is an absolutely reliable way of incorporating all the safety aspects anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pangolin
This was really just for my own satisfaction (and so my wife doesn't complain at me for having wires all over the house ;))
Cheers
Jem
Jem,
I too have an interest in Wireless links between the control source and projector head, I agree that until it is found to be rock solid it wouldn't be advisable to use it for commercial shows. After doing a big festival last year, the distance between the PC running Mamba with a USB DAC and the Projector head was about 60M, I did encounter some interference as the Galvo's would keep going out of sync, making any text/graphics a waste of time, so we had to just stick to basic beam shows instead.
One thing I am thinking of trying is a USB Network hub (belkin now have a commercialy available one) coupled with a wireless bridge to link to a half decent Access Point. The USB Net Hub fools the computer into thinking the device connected is connected directly to the USB Port. I see no reason why this wouldn't work quite well providing the Bridge and AP were of decent quality with decent antennas.
I do a fair bit of Wireless/Wired networking solutions on a regular basis with my main business, so this could be an interesting thing to discuss at the meet next weekend. I may even get one of those belkin net hubs and bring up some wireless gear to try it out...
Alex
I'll email Terry and see if he wants to sell his remote design , if he still has it, it was not expensive to produce, but was limited to 12K scanners at the time.
I'd estimate it would cost me 1-2K$ to sell a RF link, but would you mind IR free space optical? That would be much cheaper to produce. Simply buy two used adats and use the TOSLINK input/ouputs to drive big IR leds or a "go figgure" 780 nm laser diode.
hey its just a idea, but its OFF THE SHELF, hardware wise. The adat folks were selling the chipsets cheap as of last year
OK its called lightpipe, and its here. http://www.wavefrontsemi.com/index.php?id=11,10,0,0,1,0
They changed names from alesis semiconductor to wavefront.
Steve Roberts
Hi JEM,
From our experience, there are two areas that make a big difference with qmnet and wifi, the first is to use switches not routers. I am not sure why routers dont work so well but guess its related to routing or the router always trying to find other routes for the data, kind of interupting data flow.
The second is actual data rate not its specified bandwidth,. The switches must be able to deliver high volumes of data and we found after testing many home/office access points dont work so well even when they are supposed to support 54mbs.
The way to do this is get the fastest connection possible and with switches and bridges not routers or access points, in our case we use 100Mb connections and wireless bridges from esteem, so far the system has proved itself but yes its quite expensive.
If you need furthere help, PM me.
Andy;
Your experience with switches out-performing routers makes perfect sense. A switch works on Layer 2 data (frames), while a router works on Layer 3 data (packets). So a router has to do more work unwrapping and re-wrapping the data than a switch does. That's why a switch is faster.
Adam
PM sent Andy. Thanks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by andyf97