Fadecandy was often promoted as a way to let PCs use OPC (a protocol) to process pixels, via USB.
It was/is limited to 64 pixels per line, 8 lines to a board. In fact, if you used the dithering with ws2812, even less
One of the key features that I like about fadecandy is the temporal dithering & the interpolation between frames. Due to the timing/PWM & datarate of the WS2812 style pixels using dithering means that you’ll only be able to drive 48 pixels per channel instead of the 64 that you are currently able to.
Ok, so 64x8 channels via USB. Potentially you could make it “smart” and handle some data manipulation to interpolate and dither.
Compare that to @zranger’s code for the Output Expander. Processing based, any PC/Mac/Pi/etc can run it. It works similarly, via USB but can handle so many more LEDs.
Compare the size of the boards, and the small OE is about the same size, costs $19 but can run 600-800 LEDs per channel, 8 channels. That’s about 10 times as many as Fadecandy (total 64x8 = 512). Each individual channel is more than an entire FadeCandy can do. It’s dead, Jim.
Yes, you need to a USB to serial adapter ($12ish), but it can drive more than one OE at a time (8, I think) as well, so cost per pixel? Up to 8x8x800 (or 100 times a single FadeCandy) pixels and that’s just one USB connection? Need more?
Add more.