Printable View
Hi
I know this topic has been discussed before, but it never seemed to reach any conclusions.
I just wondered if anyone has managed to successfully link their computer to the QM2000.Net using a wireless connection instead of Cat5 network cable.
I'm not wanting something that is particularly commercially robust, 20 meters line of sight would be fine. If you've managed to do this what did you use to get it all working?
Cheers
Jem
Jem
what sort of wireless kit do you have? Maybe if you have all the 'right' bits - laptop with wireless and a WAP to connect to the QM maybe we could have a go at the meet to get it working
Rob
This shouldn't be so hard. Now, I don't actually have QM2000.NET, but I really don't see any reason why it shouldn't work.
OK, so what you need is a WiFi to Ethernet link. They are usually called Access Points (AP) and are found in lots of places nowadays. You probably have one already in your gateway router. These are very cheap. If you're only connecting one QM2000.NET (can you control more than one at the same time?) you could just hook that straight up to a gateway router (on a LAN port). If the QM2000.NET supports DHCP it will configure itself just like your computer using the gateway router as server. When you connect your computer to the gateway (via WiFi or Ethernet) it will be like a direct Ethernet connection to the QM2000.NET.
That was the quick and ugly solution. It only works with one
projector unless they are close enough to each other to use network cable. A much neater solution is buying gateways that you can flash with a linux embedded distribution of your choice. This allows you to for example run the routers in wireless client mode; connecting to a central AP. It also gives many other options such as using them as wireless repeaters to extend your signal range and you can also install your own apps on them.
There are a few different distributions. Most are based on OpenWrt. If you are comfortable with linux you can use OpenWrt straight away, but if you are not I would recommend DD-WRT which is more user-friendly.
The hardware: Well, this software can be installed on many routers now. I have 2 Fon routers that I have installed DD-WRT (I currrently use this one as my internet gateway) and OpenWrt (just playing with this one so far... it's being difficult). Full lists of what routers they work on can be found on the respective sites. The Linksys WRT54G series is a safe bet though, as it pretty much all started with it.
If it isn't possible to run a QM2000.NET wirelessly with an OpenWrt-router, it isn't possible at all.
Links:
http://openwrt.org/
http://www.dd-wrt.com/
EDIT: Fon routers are really cheap btw. I got my last one for €10, brand new. You can also use them with bigger antennas as they have the standard RP-SMA connector for WiFi.
Well, i've got a wireless enabled laptop and a wireless access point with an ethernet socket on the back of it. What cable does this need, crossover or straight?
I remember now what one of the problems was... LivePRO does exactly what it says on the box i.e., it's controlling the lasers 'live'. Unlike say Showtime where the entire show is loaded onto the QM2000.Net card before the show starts to play, it is possible to unplug the computer and the show on the QM2000 will continue to play. This is distinctly different from LivePRO where there is a continuous stream of data flowing between the computer and the QM2000, I believe that when running LivePRO there is no data stored on the QM2000.
So, I believe the issues were with getting a fast enough data stream through the wireless network. I suspect this was a major problem with 802.11b/g, perhaps with the new protocols (N?) this isn't so much of an issue any more.
It's just one of those things that I fancied having a go at, to not have any wires between the projector and the computer would be cool.
Cheers
Jem
Wireless would be very cool, but someone needs to make a bi-directional ADC/DAC type thing so we can sent the interlock signals and other projector-specific laser releated signals along side the ILDA standard signal.
-Matt.
Yes, I hear what you're saying about safety & I had already considered this. This is really just an experiment for my own satisfaction, certainly NOT for commercial use. Thanks for bringing the subject up though, any reminders about safety are always good ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Lampy
Cheers
Jem
You should use a straight, but lots of equipment today has autosense, so either could possibly work (depending on the router).
Looking at the QM2000.NET circuit it looks like it has onboard RAM, which suggests it can at least be used to store something, but the question is what? If you can load frames to it that could help even the network load. Even if that's not possible it shouldn't be a problem to run it over a 54g connection bandwidth-wise. Assuming you're sending 2 16-bit coordinates and 4 8-bit color coordinates 3 Mb/s would go as far as 47 kpps. I would expect a 54g connection to typically do 20 Mb/s, so there's plenty with headroom there... even with TCP overhead.
The only thing I can imagine being a problem is latency. Ethernet devices usually have around 100 µs latency, but for wireless it's higher, say 1 ms. Still, I think it should be fine.
Something really cool about using for example a Fon router with OpenWrt is that you can add a serial port to it and use that for the safety interlock (you could even add a web interface to it).
Take a look at:
http://www.dd-wrt.com/wiki/index.php...lling_AC-Loads
Don't get me wrong, I'm not poo-pooing the idea! I really am interested in doing a similar thing over wireless or cat5. I'd really like to be able to have my remote panel with invert switches, e-stop, key switch, output power pot and status leds interfaced to the PC in some way so the signals could travel over wifi or ethernet rather than having the chunky multi-core I use now!
-Matt.
There's a couple of threads in the "Networking" section of the Pangolin forum discussing wireless networks http://www.pangolin.com/ubb/postlist...t=0&Board=UBB5
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lampy
That's one thing about the Pangolin QM2000.Net - It already uses Cat5 to communicate as it's network ready ;) So, It should just be a simple case of sticking some wireless stuff in there and hey presto :D
If only it were that simple.
Jem
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
Update for esteem equipment with pangolin QMnet.
We have continued to use the system without any problems, the big test I was waiting for was a big enough concert with many people, mobile phones and other radio based equipment.
Well on 1st March we worked at a concert for chicane here in Bucharest and it was a perfect sittuation for testing.
We had two networks, one direct cabled and the other via wireless both running on pangolin Performers and laptops.
Our finding are many people see our wireless network and try to login HAHAHA. the other is when starting showtime, Designer or Live Pro we have some small delays, then again when changing zones or modifying scanner settings we get a small pause like 2-3 seconds. other than that the wireless system ran perfectly all night.
Here's a vido of the show
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMTBm...eature=related
So it works fine if you can manage with some small delays that are not a problem during a show.
Andy
if you use wireless hardware capable of running DDWRT you can make point to point wireless links that are "invisible" to other 802.11 devices... this would be a good inexpensive solution
also if you really want to go for broke Cisco makes wireless to ethernet bridges (note that they will only assoicate with cisco access points) and they can also do wireless bridging therefore making the network invisible... the ciscos also monitor the RF link and all sorts of other fun stuff... i use those ciscos a lot and they are great...
but ideally you need to see how much data your actually transfering to your QM... realistically you cant be sending more than 1gbps of data to the card even if its in a PCI slot becuase the 32bit/33mhz PCI bus is limited to a little over 1gbps anyway... even then you might just be sending small burts of data using livepro (vs a huge frame file using showtime) so i would be willing to bet that pretty much any 802.11 should work... i would aim for 802.11g since i have had better luck with its OFDM modulation dealing with noise vs DSSS for 802.11b