![]() |
|
|||||||
| RDM Interpretation Questions Discussion and questions relating to interpreting and understanding the E1.20 RDM Standard. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
|
|
#6 |
|
Administrator
|
Hamish,
I may just be getting sleepy here but I'm not too offended with what you're proposing there. The Block Address PID was created because there were some folks doing some very bad things with the normal DMX Start Address PID with 0 and values above 512 for crude Block Addressing. As Eric said one of the main things we didn't want is strange things happening with the root device address when using the Block Address PID. We also were trying to be clear so that it wasn't ambiguous if the Block Address PID would include the root device or not include the root device where it would be a guessing game for a controller. In your implementation you don't really have a root device slot, they are just virtual. The main thing I would say is that when you change modes like that you need to at least send out QUEUED messages alerting the controller that the footprint has changed...
__________________
Scott M. Blair ![]() RDM Protocol Forums Admin |
|
|
|
| Bookmarks |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| ACT_TIMER to Set messages | nic123 | RDM Interpretation Questions | 3 | April 18th, 2014 12:01 PM |
| Relative frequency of UID set changes to RDM messages events | nomis52 | RDM General Implementation Discussion | 6 | July 6th, 2010 10:02 PM |
| Sub-device response to SET/GET DMX512 start address | p_richart | RDM Interpretation Questions | 2 | September 29th, 2006 09:27 AM |