Another BLOCK_ADDRESS question - E1.20 RDM (Remote Device Management) Protocol Forums

este_ · July 30th, 2013

This question relates to the BLOCK_ADDRESS issue raised by Hamish before.

This is my point of view:
BLOCK_ADDRESS only makes sense when there are Sub-Devices present. There is, however, no need to suppress the BLOCK_ADDRESS PID when Sub-Devices have gone (e.g. the "empty" Dimmer Rack referred to earlier). You may assume to receive a valid address in the DMX address range. You may also be able to set (write) a Block Adress without Sub-Devices installed; but slot allocation may only take place as soon as the Sub-Devices (with their respective slot count) are added or enabled.

July 30th, 2013	#4
este_ Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Germany Posts: 24	This question relates to the BLOCK_ADDRESS issue raised by Hamish before. This is my point of view: BLOCK_ADDRESS only makes sense when there are Sub-Devices present. There is, however, no need to suppress the BLOCK_ADDRESS PID when Sub-Devices have gone (e.g. the "empty" Dimmer Rack referred to earlier). You may assume to receive a valid address in the DMX address range. You may also be able to set (write) a Block Adress without Sub-Devices installed; but slot allocation may only take place as soon as the Sub-Devices (with their respective slot count) are added or enabled.