Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Implement WLED issue #3554 - [dis]respect LEDmaps when receiving UDP #191

Open
spblat opened this issue Nov 20, 2024 · 5 comments
Open

Implement WLED issue #3554 - [dis]respect LEDmaps when receiving UDP #191

spblat opened this issue Nov 20, 2024 · 5 comments
Labels
backburner low priority compared to other issues enhancement New feature or request workaround The issue contains a workaround

Comments

@spblat
Copy link

spblat commented Nov 20, 2024

Adapted from from my request Aircoookie#3579 in Aircookie/WLED which was resolved by Aircoookie#3554:

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.

When a string of LEDs is operating independently, sometimes it’s helpful to use LEDmaps. When that same string is controlled using DDP/UDP, we may or may not not want the active LEDmap to affect the ordering of the LEDs.

Describe the solution you'd like
In main branch issue Aircoookie#3554, a client-side setting was implemented which “allows to tell WLED to not respect LED maps for all realtime modes.”

Describe alternatives you've considered
I considered alternatives in my original issue, Aircoookie#3579

Thank you!

@spblat spblat added the enhancement New feature or request label Nov 20, 2024
@softhack007
Copy link
Collaborator

Hi @spblat, thanks for the pointer.

Actually the upstream (AC WLED) solution introduces a performance bottleneck in setPixelcolor(), so we'll need to find a different way to implement this feature in WLED-MM.

We'll look into it after the upcoming release.

For the time being, you could use a preset without ledMap and activate it before starting realtime mode.

@softhack007
Copy link
Collaborator

softhack007 commented Nov 21, 2024

PS: I think the "HTTP Request API" can be used to switch to a specific preset ID

&PL= | 1 to 250 | Applies entire preset

https://kno.wled.ge/interfaces/http-api/#presets

@softhack007 softhack007 added backburner low priority compared to other issues workaround The issue contains a workaround labels Nov 21, 2024
@spblat
Copy link
Author

spblat commented Nov 21, 2024

PS: I think the "HTTP Request API" can be used to switch to a specific preset ID

If you could use the HTTP or JSON API from one WLED to tell another WLED to change to a specific preset, that would be a perfect workaround. But I don’t think this is possible. The implemented fix in main WLED adds an option on the DDP receiving side to disregard its local ledmap when DDP receiving is active. Isn’t that as workable here as it is there?

@softhack007
Copy link
Collaborator

softhack007 commented Nov 21, 2024

main WLED adds an option on the DDP receiving side to disregard its local ledmap when DDP receiving is active. Isn’t that as workable here as it is there?

No it's not. It is technicially possible to do a similar change, but this change is in conflict with the performance improvements we did in MM.

As I explained before, the change in main WLED (aka upstream) would introduce a new performance bottleneck, while just supporting a very special use case.

That's what I meant when saying

Actually the upstream (AC WLED) solution introduces a performance bottleneck in setPixelColor(), so we'll need to find a different way to implement this feature in WLED-MM.

Edit: I didn't mean to say "its impossible". But we'll need to think about a more efficient implementation to add the same feature in MM - because reducing performance of setPixelColor() is not an option.

@dosipod
Copy link

dosipod commented Nov 21, 2024

I am also not in favor of doing that from the slave side as that does not solve the issue if we are using old builds for the slaves .
Something we used from the master is create a blank ledmap and once it is activated then DDP worked as expected , seems dirty workaround but it means we could do that from master @softhack007 what do you think ?
image

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
backburner low priority compared to other issues enhancement New feature or request workaround The issue contains a workaround
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants