Jump to content


Photo

Computer Firing Systems


  • Please log in to reply
32 replies to this topic

#16 pyrotrev

pyrotrev

    Pyro Forum Top Trump

  • UKPS Members
  • 1,112 posts

Posted 17 January 2006 - 08:37 PM

I think he means Bickford-type blasting fuse, not Davey ignitors.


Yes, you're absolutely right Adam. For those who aren't familiar with Pyroclock, it's a snap-together system of T-shaped plastic pipes with inserts of bits of Bickford in a sort of plastic carrier. The problem I had was an insert part way down the chain not igniting, the igniter at the front initiated the chain fine. This is one situation where firing on an automated system with one igniter per firework would have likely been better, but I was sshort of channels.
Trying to do something very beautiful but very dangerous very safely....

#17 pyrotrev

pyrotrev

    Pyro Forum Top Trump

  • UKPS Members
  • 1,112 posts

Posted 17 January 2006 - 08:48 PM

It's an interesting point as to what the best frequency for radio links is. There's relatively inexpensive radio modems available for the licence-free 433MHz, 458, 868MHz and now 2.4GHz, but they all require reasonable line of sight for good long distance transmission - maybe not such a bad thing since you should always have view of what you're firing. Unfortunately they're all used for various wireless thingies, so the possibility of interference is quite possible, maybe the 458 and 868MHz might be the best since they seem to be more used for professional/industrial purposes. Anyone any other ideas?? What do the "big" firing systems use?
Trying to do something very beautiful but very dangerous very safely....

#18 MFX

MFX

    Member

  • General Public Members
  • PipPip
  • 110 posts

Posted 17 January 2006 - 09:23 PM

maybe the 458 and 868MHz might be the best since they seem to be more used for professional/industrial purposes. Anyone any other ideas?? What do the "big" firing systems use?


My latest system will use 458MHz, you're allowed 500mW which is quite a lot, and the equipment is relatively expensive and hence rare. Also line of sight is less of an issue than it is at 868MHz and 2.4GHz From memory :-

Wireless lite (part of firelite) 2.4GHz Spread spectrum
Pyromate 27MHz
Galaxis PYROTEC Around 430 MHz (They quote 70-cm Wavelength)
Brightfire wireless, don't know but looks like 27MHz from the fragile looking! aerial
Parente Firemaster Around 40MHz but can change depending on country
Pyrotech 27MHz

There are MANY others out there (more than I thought) So I haven't been able to go through them all, and a lot don't quote the frequency they use.

Edited by MFX, 18 January 2006 - 12:07 AM.

If it looks like it's coming towards you, it probably is!

#19 MFX

MFX

    Member

  • General Public Members
  • PipPip
  • 110 posts

Posted 18 January 2006 - 12:02 AM

For example, the company I work for in New York has to use a Fire One system to shoot one show, or else the customer will use a different company, a very expensive venture :wacko:


Sorry refering back to the original post , what exactly are thier reasons for insisting on a Fire One over other Computer based systems. Do they realise that there have been problems with some Fire one shows. Actually NO firing system is ever going to be perfect, it's an impossible goal and the more complex and clever they get the more likely that system or human failure will become an issue.
If it looks like it's coming towards you, it probably is!

#20 zookeeper

zookeeper

    Member

  • General Public Members
  • PipPip
  • 72 posts

Posted 18 January 2006 - 03:59 AM

Sorry refering back to the original post , what exactly are thier reasons for insisting on a Fire One over other Computer based systems. Do they realise that there have been problems with some Fire one shows. Actually NO firing system is ever going to be perfect, it's an impossible goal and the more complex and clever they get the more likely that system or human failure will become an issue.


I think it was just a game of good marketing, the Fire One advertisement looked the "coolest".

The real reason is that the show is advertised as being "syncronised to music" and the customer feels that a show like this needs a computer. I agree on some points, the script calls for some comet "wipes" and "volleys", which are difficult (but not impossible) for a human.

I know that competing companies have never had a problem, and they are using contracts of past years as a basis for new bidding. I think they wouldn't be too "picky" if we used a different system, just as long as it was automated to timecode.


Pyroclock, it's a snap-together system of T-shaped plastic pipes with inserts of bits of Bickford in a sort of plastic carrier


Which SUCKS at the end of the evening, when the site cleanup begins, the plastic "leftovers" are difficult to rake up :angry: However if you are doing a barge water show ***Bloooopp*** :rolleyes:


I also want to build an interface unit to connect it to existing manual desks so that wireless hits can be hit from the same desk as the wired hits without having to switch desks.


Now THAT is an idea that got my attention, if you do built something like that, it may be marketable.

Thank you for the technical "rundown" of your system, wireless technology is still quite new to me and my electronic background is not the best, but I'm learning slowly :P

#21 MFX

MFX

    Member

  • General Public Members
  • PipPip
  • 110 posts

Posted 18 January 2006 - 08:19 AM

Now THAT is an idea that got my attention, if you do built something like that, it may be marketable.


Well doing the neat way and still being marketable would be tricky as there are so many differents desks out there, all using different connectors and systems to talk to the field boxes (Ideally the transmitter should just plug in like a field box). However the dirty way to do it would be to have lots of flyleads that plug into an existing fieldbox like igniters so it would be messy but universal and work on any system. However it would still need to cope with every type of firing voltage out there including high voltage cap discharge so still not a walk in the park!
If it looks like it's coming towards you, it probably is!

#22 zookeeper

zookeeper

    Member

  • General Public Members
  • PipPip
  • 72 posts

Posted 20 January 2006 - 03:53 AM

.... so still not a walk in the park!


Agreed, but it is a really good idea IMO :)

#23 NUKE

NUKE

    PyroFan

  • General Public Members
  • PipPip
  • 67 posts

Posted 15 June 2009 - 10:47 PM

Hi.I am interested for a program like that.Can anyone tells me where i can find pyrodigital?
Thanks a lot.

#24 BrightStar

BrightStar

    Pyro Forum Regular

  • General Public Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 900 posts

Posted 16 June 2009 - 08:44 AM

Can anyone tells me where i can find pyrodigital?


http://www.infinityv...pyrodigital.htm

Their visual show director software is listed at USD $4250, the field controller $9395 and a 16 shot module $1015, so it's quite a barrier to entry. Pyrodigital do have a very good reputation though. Fire-one are apparently well engineered electrically but have sometimes had a few problems with bugs in their firmware.

It seems to me that one key thing to look for in a firing system is the ability to chase SMTP timecode. Given this, you could for example, contract to take one rooftop as part of a large city-wide show. As long as you can synch with the SMTP signal broadcast you can join in the event, regardless of what systems the other companies shooting are using.

Edited by BrightStar, 16 June 2009 - 08:47 AM.


#25 Arthur Brown

Arthur Brown

    General member

  • UKPS Members
  • 2,923 posts

Posted 16 June 2009 - 09:37 AM

http://www.firebywire.co.uk/

Brilliant little boxes that do all you want and more.

I like cable, as I have seen a show fall over when the wireless went down.
http://www.movember.com/uk/home/

Keep mannequins and watermelons away from fireworks..they always get hurt..

#26 Guest_PyroPDC_*

Guest_PyroPDC_*
  • Guests

Posted 16 June 2009 - 10:23 AM

i would second firebywire to, its very upgradable (i brought 3 control boxes which is 192cue and will be adding onto the system very soon) Mat from firebywire was one of the most friendliest people iv meet and very helpful. he even went out of his way to help with wiring diagrams so i could build my own slat boxes. this guy even emailed me at 1AM on a sunday to answer a question i had about the system :o

the software seems very good and stable to hasn't let me down yet.

Edited by PyroPDC, 16 June 2009 - 10:25 AM.


#27 karlfoxman

karlfoxman

    Resident Maltese shell builder

  • General Public Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,139 posts

Posted 16 June 2009 - 07:05 PM

I will third MLE Firebywire! Amazing bit of kit does everything you could want, and more. Mat is a great guy very friendly and a good help, support is 10/10. Never had a problem with the firing system. If your thinking of getting a system you will not be dissapointed, just check out some vids of Stanford hall or come along and see it in action!

#28 NUKE

NUKE

    PyroFan

  • General Public Members
  • PipPip
  • 67 posts

Posted 16 June 2009 - 10:42 PM

quite expensive! And as i can imagine there is no any freeware,right?

#29 Arthur Brown

Arthur Brown

    General member

  • UKPS Members
  • 2,923 posts

Posted 17 June 2009 - 05:22 AM

Good, Now, Cheap -- Pick any two!

There is freeware all over the web! But if it's good software then the hardware design is poor, or the music sync is poor, or the cue count is poor.

If you want a good system you have to pay for the development that made it good.
http://www.movember.com/uk/home/

Keep mannequins and watermelons away from fireworks..they always get hurt..

#30 phildunford

phildunford

    Member

  • General Public Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,299 posts

Posted 17 June 2009 - 09:12 AM

There is freeware all over the web!


Do tell...
Teaching moft plainly, and withall moft exactly, the composing of all manner of fire-works for tryumph and recreation (John Bate 1635)
Posted Imagethegreenman




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users