How would a Pixel Megatree like this work?

[JonB256]

I'm going to finally replace my AC controller based Megatree with a Pixel tree, but recent discussion about the lower resolution toward the bottom of the tree and the congestion of pixels at the top made me think about alternatives.

For instance (and my picture should help), if you have a fairly normal 17 to 20 ft (5m to 6m) tree, the pixels are pretty spread out at the base and then overlapping at the top. So, what if, about 1/3 down from the top, you begin adding another string to fill in that gap.

I can imaging making it but what I'm not quite picturing is how I would Model it and Program it in xLights.
Any ideas?

[mararunr]

Make two separate models - one for the whole tree (strands that go all the way down) and one for the bottom two-thirds (the "extra" strands filling in the gaps).  Place them in the layout so they look like what you made.  Then create a group of the two models.  Apply all effects to the group.  Now since xLights treats everything as a matrix I'm curious how the effects would actually look at the group level.  I would draw it out in xLights first maybe and test the theory.  Nice idea Jon.

[Gilrock]

I say you won't like how a lot of effects will look.  Effects need to be rendered as if it was a flat matrix.  So unroll your creation and look at it to see the model you will really be sequencing onto.  I think you should just pick the gap you want at the bottom then use that to determine the radius at the top.  Yes the top ring has to get a little bigger round the more strings you use.

A group model will not sequence to this setup properly.  You would need a custom model like this:

X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X
X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X
X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X
X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

[jnealand]

I agree with Gil.  The issue that was being discussed was about text and maybe pictures.  With standard effects, there is no issue.  I think it is much ado about nothing.  Everything I throw at my two pixels trees - 1 8ft, 1 16ft look just fine.  This is probably another instance of lighter overthinking things (guilty) and the audience does not care.

[arw01]

I solved some of that resolution issue (at least in theory) just got the tree up this morning to play with for a couple of weeks.

I dropped a little further on the top so it has that flat top look to it, and then I double up on pixels down at the bottom for the first 9 sets.  There are 50 on each string on 2" spacing until the final 20" or so then it's 2 pixels tight and a skip of 2" and then 2 pixels.  I figured that might even out the spacing on the bottom a bit  Might squish some images, but have to play with it and see.

[danj]

I did my first 5m tree this year and I used 30 LEDs/10 ICs strips with about 6" to 8" separation at the bottom.   I did a couple of words on it and it looked great.   My strips were really tight at the topper because I did not separate the eyebolts as well as I should have--lesson learned--I will make the topper a bit larger next year and I am going to go from 180 tree to 360 tree to get a little bit more spacing at top.  Agree with Jim here--the NC effects will look AMAZING.   The big tree was just unbelievable....

[JonB256]

I'll admit to probably over-thinking the resolution thing, but all my "matrix" experience has been with Horizontal or Vertical or P10 models, so the resolution is constant.

I've put off changing to a Mega Pixel simply because I have 64 x100 very nice LED lights on my tree now and they will have no home when I change.

I plan to use a 270° Tree model. Any consensus on how many strips of lights I should use?
That would be an Arc of about 226 inches.
A gap of 8 inches at the base would be 28 strips of lights.
A gap of 6 inches at the base would be 36 strips of lights.

I'd plan on a string going Up and down (folded) one time, so that would be 14 or 18 controller outputs. (probably a F16v2 with expansion or an F16B with expansion)

[jnealand]

You can cheat like I did or maybe I little more.  I am using Boscoyo pixel mounting strips with 61 nodes per double strip in 3" spacing.  Then I go up and down so that gives me 122 nodes per connection to an F16 v1.  I have a QT2 topper from Holiday Coro that will support 32 strips.  16 strips would be half, but I used 18 strips to give me a little fuller appearance so 18/32 x 360 = 202 deg.  And here is the trick, I only used a 180 base.  I could probably add 2 or 4 more strips and still use the same 180 base and I'm sure it would look fine.  That was my fall back plan if needed, but I am very happy with the look.  I am using 9 connections on the F16 for strings and 1 more for a 3 layer star from Christmas Light Show.  That tree is so bright that it lights up the neighbors yard across the street so much I have been surprised they have not complained.  Be careful of going with too many nodes.  I think I got a couple of good videos yesterday before my camera battery gave out.  Now I just need to get them into the computer and edited with the music so I can upload them.

I have neighbor about a mile away with a huge static display and I sold him the 50 of my 64 mega string lights that were still in good shape.  Sold off the inventory of LED lights that I was hoarding for mega tree replacements as well.  I got a lot of storage area cleaned out and enough money to buy a lot more RGB lights.

[nutz4lights]

I will back up what jnealand is suggesting in regards to selling the existing leds to help fund the new lights. When I built my pixel tree three years ago, I sold the 180 strings (60 each color red green and warm white) from the existing tree since they were pretty good quality lights (c6 leds from Paul Sussex @ creative).  I don't know what kind of leds you have, but it wouldn't be unheard of to get $7 or more per string which would pay for a decent amount of pixels.   I think I got around a grand for my leds which paid for the 48 x 50 pixel strings I use on my 360 tree... and the two controllers I use to run it (p12s from j1sys... the Falcon controllers were not out back then,  nor were the advatek controllers I tend to buy now).

Post them for sale on planet Christmas and someone will snap them up if they're good lights.

Louie

Sent from my SM-G928V using Tapatalk

[Steve Gase]

i'd just use the higher resolution in software...  in the physical tree, the resolution would be diminished in the top half.  if you had a REALLY tall tree, then have 3 resolutions.

model:  120 strings of 120...

1 - - 4 - - 7 - - 10 - - 13 - - 16 - - 19 - - ...
1 - - 4 - - 7 - - 10 - - 13 - - 16 - - 19 - - ...
1 - - 4 - - 7 - - 10 - - 13 - - 16 - - 19 - - ...
1 - - 4 - - 7 - - 10 - - 13 - - 16 - - 19 - - ...
.
.
.
1 2 - 4 5 - 7 8 - 10 11 - 13 14 - 16 17 - 19 20 - ...
1 2 - 4 5 - 7 8 - 10 11 - 13 14 - 16 17 - 19 20 - ...
1 2 - 4 5 - 7 8 - 10 11 - 13 14 - 16 17 - 19 20 - ...
1 2 - 4 5 - 7 8 - 10 11 - 13 14 - 16 17 - 19 20 - ...
.
.
.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ...
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ...
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ...
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ...
.
.
.

it will require a custom model because the standard model cannot handle varied-length strings.

in my tree, i did not take this tact... instead, i had 48 strings of 85 and the top had 24 hooks in 270-degrees and i had 2 strings on each hook.  at the bottom the strings were evenly-spaced around 3/4 of a 25ft hoop.  I was happy with the appearance.  (pictures will be posted later...)