Author Topic: Matrix setup confusion  (Read 848 times)

Offline rickswa

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 85
    • View Profile
Matrix setup confusion
« on: January 06, 2018, 02:27:28 PM »
Hey All,

I'm going to be replacing my LED coro frequency sign with a pixel matrix one for next season.  I'm running the falcon f16v3 but will be using an expansion board to reach the sign on the far end of the yard.  The matrix will be 18 nodes vertically by 22 horizontally for a total of 396 nodes.  My plan was to use 4 strands of 100ct ws2811 pixel nodes starting at either the bottom left or right and zig zag up the matrix and just cut off the last 4 nodes.  I guess my first question would be is this possible or do I have to have one strand for each line?  Also, I get the # strings and nodes/string in xlights, but I'm confused about the strands/string or how I would define the zig zag in xlights or have it work with 3 strands of 100 nodes and the final of only 96.  Any ideas on how to go about this?  I've read the other forums threads and the manual but still a bit of confusion on my part.  Thanks for any help.

Offline Gilrock

  • Supporting Member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 6946
    • View Profile
Re: Matrix setup confusion
« Reply #1 on: January 06, 2018, 06:38:08 PM »
How many actual outputs from the controller are you planning on using?  The problem is 100 is not divisible by 18 or 22 so there is no good way to define a multi-string matrix if you plan to have 100 nodes per output.  The best thing would be if you could just use one output from the controller and power inject where needed.  Then you could just define it as 1 string of 396 pixels with either 18 or 22 strands per string depending on whether its defined as horizontal or vertical.

Offline rickswa

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 85
    • View Profile
Re: Matrix setup confusion
« Reply #2 on: January 07, 2018, 11:44:47 AM »
THANK YOU!!! That did the trick.  I think based on what you mentioned, I'll just use one output and power inject at a couple spots.  Sounds like that would be the easier way since it's not an even 400 nodes.  Thanks again for the help.