Although I have no major problem with using ethernet, I believe USB can
be done without proprietary software (via java wrappers for libusb and
libusb-win32) and the OSC protocol can be used on top of either ethernet
or usb, no? The problem with ethernet is that you have to deal with the
addressing. I guess you could assign a truly static IP but that might
not be compatible with every network setup or you would have to be able
to edit the units IP address via the encoders, then end users would need
to know how to assign their IP to be on the same subnet, etc.
Overall, I think USB tends to offer a more transparent solution if
properly implemented.
Dave
Jonathan Snipes wrote:
>
>
> my vote would be ethernet with control via OSC ... wouldn't require any
> proprietary software. could control it from almost anything.
>
>
> On Sep 3, 2007, at 11:45 AM, David Moylan wrote:
>
>> My vote is for USB or Ethernet, preferably USB. I use a laptop so don't
>> have a direct serial port. Midi is very standard but inherently limited
>> and again I'd need an adaptor. Although Midi might enable the CG to
>> respond to other hardware, I think the main point here is to develop a
>> computer to CG interface so why not use the standard computer
>> jack/protocols. Ethernet is cool (put your CG under internet control!),
>> but I think USB makes more sense overall.
>>
>> I'll volunteer to write an editor (especially if it means I get hardware
>> early :) ). I can do it in Java which should be able to handle any of
>> the interface options and theoretically do it cross platform. I use OSX
>> so I will make sure it covers OSX as well. I'm a programmer by trade
>> but am more of the make-it-work type than the make-it-look-pretty type
>> so would be open to a collaborator on the graphic end even if just for
>> photoshop work.
>>
>> Dave
>>
>> Paul Schreiber wrote:
>> >> Paul, have you made any more decision regarding the digital interface
>> >> to the cloud generator? With all of these parameters being able to
>> >> code a computer based editor would seem a big plus. I know some
>> >> people prefer to keep their computer and modular segregated but I'm
>> >> always looking for more ways to use my computer with my modular.
>> >
>> > Hmmm... I haven't really thought about it (having direct link from the
>> > Expander to a computer). It could be:
>> >
>> > a) serial port
>> > b) MIDI port
>> > c) USB
>> > d) Ethernet
>> >
>> > The added hardware cost is $10-$15 (my cost) per module, so I guess the
>> > question to ask is:
>> >
>> > a) who wants to volunteer to write the editors
>> > b) is a burden cost of say $30/module worth it (everyone pays it)
>> >
>> > This would push the planned cost of the Expander from $189 to say $219.
>> > Big deal?
>> >
>> > Paul S.
>> >
>>
>
>