E1.20 RDM (Remote Device Management) Protocol Forums  

Go Back   E1.20 RDM (Remote Device Management) Protocol Forums > RDM Developer Forums > RDM General Implementation Discussion
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

RDM General Implementation Discussion General Discussion and questions relating to implementing RDM in a product.

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
Old March 3rd, 2012   #6
prwatE120
Task Group Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 181
Default

After quite a bit of field experince with this, I take the exact opposite view to Eric, and insist that IDENTIFY Timeout on all our products. With wireless links and remote controls, you dont need to be 5-10 minutes walk from the areas you are trying to ident, and there is nothing worse than having a director shout at you to "to turn off that .... flashing light" when, as a result of the problem you are possibly chasing in the first place, you have lost control of the fixture via RDM and cannot use the controller to turn it OFF.

In order to keep sync with controllers, we of course attempt to issue a queued message that indicates to the controller that the IDENTIFY has expired.

As the standard does not speak to thia at all, both approaches are acceptable, and it is down to the manufacturer to decide.

Certainly it is a good idea for a console to have the ability to send a broadcast IDENTIFY_DEVICE Off - I seen a few that don't.
prwatE120 is offline   Reply With Quote
 

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:18 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.