New to xLights Need E1.31 setup help.

[tfmacz]

I have been running Vixen since 2007.  Everything is DMX controlled. I want to convert the display to xLights.
I have 3 ethernet interfaces on my display computer.
one for wired ethernet, static IP, multicast to 2 noname e1.31 sACN to DMX interface Bridge.  for 8 universes.
one is wired to a display dedicated WiFi Router for numerous ESP32 controllers receiving wireless DMX and driving various pixel fixtures, minitrees, coro snowflakes and stars and strands.
one is wired ethernet for my home network for remote control and internet accesss.

In setting up a multicast E1.31 controller I don't see a way to direct the controller to a particular ethernet interface.
Universe 1 - 8 go to the static ip interface labeled (ethernet) in windows to multicast to the 2 Bridge interfaces.
a different channel map universe  1 and 2 go to the wifi interface labeled (ethernet 2) in windows for the pixel controllers
Is this possible in xLights?

Thanks.

[Gilrock]

I'm a developer and I'm not an expert in this area.  My guess is the answer is no.  In xLights you can assign a controller to a Unicast IP address or make it Multicast.  There is a setting in xLights to pick which adapter it will use to send data but its not controller specific unless something changed in the last year.

[tfmacz]

This would be helpfull.  I can probably send everything display related to a single ethernet interface.  Move the wireless interface over. A lot of routers block multicast by default and getting them to pass multicast is very hit and miss.  I just want to keep as much of the multicast stuff off my LAN.

Where would I look to set this?

Also, then in the E1.31 controller setup I set 10 universes??

[Gilrock]

In xLights:  File -> Preferences -> Output tab -> Force Local IP
Or you can click in an open area under your controllers and on the right will be the same option.

In xSchedule:  Edit -> Options -> Force Local IP

[Centauri61032]

Hey tfmacz - Just curious...

Are you saying that you are running your light show basically from the same LAN as your home network? And if so, is there a reason you are doing it this way?

[Gilrock]

Hey tfmacz - Just curious...

Are you saying that you are running your light show basically from the same LAN as your home network? And if so, is there a reason you are doing it this way?

That's how I run mine.  I used to run a separate show network but it caused more headaches and didn't really fix any issues.  My issue was my security cameras had to come across the same ethernet wires that show data was going out on.  I have a permanently wired setup with conduit under my eaves that supplies ethernet to my cameras and a couple show network outlets.  So it was always a pain trying to see my security cameras on my main PC and be able to get to the rest of my network.  I was asking some xLights users who were network experts and they convinced me two different networks were unnecessary.  And I have tons and tons of devices that connect to my network along with 2 kids streaming Netflix and online games, etc.

[Centauri61032]

Good information, and very interesting.

I have always had my show on a separate LAN subnet/router just to eliminate any issues. I run WIFI to two matrix panels connected with Pi's, and was concerned about the WIFI performance if there was heavy traffic on my home network from streaming or something else. It has always worked well for me, and probably won't change it. But it's good to know that the two networks can coexist without any problems.

My setup is using 64 universes. So it just 'feels' like that would need a ton of available bandwidth to support that without any latency. But, that is only blind perception. I have never actually measures my show network traffic. It is probably actually miniscule.

[Gilrock]

You should have your matrix PI's setup so that the files are local and the only thing transmitted is a sync packet so its very little show traffic.

[jnealand]

There is a major difference with sending data over wifi and with using wifi with FPP master/remote operation.  Sending data directly almost always ends up with lag, but master remote only sends sync packets and if a packet is missed the remote just keeps going as all the data is already on the remote.

[JonB256]

One of the things I changed a few years back was a reduction in the number of Remotes I used. 5 years ago, I ran every FPP based controller as a Remote. There were 9 of them, all getting their Sync packets via WiFi.

There were a few too many times where I noticed some of them being just a bit behind, then catch up, and not always at the same point. It annoyed me to the point that I rethought my layout.

Now, I only have 3 Remotes, mostly based on the Area of the display they are in. One of those Remotes drives a very large P5 panel (48 panels) so it does nothing else. The other 2 remotes don't actually have any Pixels attached. Their job is to output E1.31 or DDP information to the controllers in their area. This has resulted in a much better synchronized display.

Oh, and those Remotes use CAT5 inputs, using a Gigabit switch in the garage. I've don't use WiFi except for testing. I don't mind cables in the yard. It impresses the people who see it in daylight.