|
2010 Aurora Status / DMX beta |
Post Reply | Page <1 56789 10> |
Author | ||||
deweycooter
Development Joined: 14 Oct 2007 Location: League City, TX Online Status: Offline Posts: 674 |
Quote Reply Posted: 13 Jul 2011 at 7:08am | |||
It really sounds like there's more at play here than any of us know. I've dabbled in the past, messing around with the protocol - it wasn't that hard to understand. For Aurora to outright drop support for that protocol going forward... it sounds like there's quite a bit more to it - maybe a game of cat and mouse going on with the protocol. Michael's smart, so I don't take the decision to go this direction lightly, nor do I think he had an easy time making that decision.
As I see it, the problem is that anyone can change the protocol - it's not a standard. D-Light introduces shimmer and twinkle ramps - LOR can choose to incorporate those, ignore them, or go a completely different direction. LOR is the bigger dog in the fight. What do you do if you're D-Light? You either try to keep in step with them or you're at the mercy of each software vendor to incorporate your specific protocol implementation. I'm not familiar with S2 at all, but I'm betting that they're not going to implement D-Light-specific commands (please correct me if I'm wrong). S2 users would either live without the D-Light commands or be compelled to only buy LOR controllers. Ladies and gentlemen, vendor lock-in. Steve Jobs would be proud. So Aurora (and D-Light, for that matter) have a choice to make - keep updating to follow a protocol that sees changes every year and still has problems, or go DMX. No more vendor-specific protocols. No more instability. Aurora can send out a stream of data to any controller - if the controller does the wrong thing, the problem is the controller, not Aurora. Tony, I agree. It kinda sucks. I have a dozen or so D-Light controllers and another dozen Lynx. I've been running a 2-network show the past 2 years - one network on D-Light, one on DMX. What I have is not broke. But it just seems that using DMX going forward is going to simplify things. I think there may be still more things to shake out of all this. One thing I wonder about is if we can use a future release of the editor with the current version of the scheduler..??? If the sequence data is compatible, then we might only be looking at converting controllers to DMX, not a new adapter. Or...(!!!) there might even be a way to make new sequences work without making any changes to your existing infrastructure. Regardless, we still have some time. And I think users not wanting to upgrade are not necessarily dead in the water. Edited by deweycooter - 13 Jul 2011 at 7:12am |
||||
bdkeen
Beta Testers Joined: 31 Dec 2007 Location: Easton,PA Online Status: Offline Posts: 380 |
Quote Reply Posted: 13 Jul 2011 at 7:29am | |||
Due to financial reasons I've been a bit out of the main stream the past year but have been lurking and watching the developments.
Biggest question I have is: Are all the main players of sequencing software just dropping the LOR/D-light protocols and opting for only DMX protocol requiring their users/customers to invest another $100 to $200 on an interface plus any additional costs to make the controllers DMX compatable? I was really looking forward to the somewhat promised fixes and the addition of DMX along side using the D-Light/LOR equipment (the DMX version that was made available to me never worked much at all for me due to the lack of a D-Light V3 dongle and failure of Aurora to support any other DMX dongle). I can understand using DMX but am disappointed to hear that what the product originally supported and those that supported Aurora all this time appear to be left out in the cold unless they are willing to jump on the DMX band wagon. Seems there have been too numerous mentions of fixes and enhancements and more often than not we read in these forums that there's just one minor bug to fix than Wham! things take a new direction leaving those of us not prilvideged standing. Those privlidged individuals have been able to grow along with the direction Aurora has been taking making the pain of change less distasteful.. For the rest of us this is very bad tasting. |
||||
ChrisL1976
Beta Testers Joined: 01 Sep 2008 Location: Kankakee, Ill Online Status: Offline Posts: 1341 |
Quote Reply Posted: 13 Jul 2011 at 7:38am | |||
Honestly, its not bad, depending on who you go with. LOR controller will give you out of the box assembled DMX capability for $120 D-light controller will give you out of the box assembled DMX capability for $95 Lynx Express will give you a unassembled DMX capability for around $60-65 JS1 DR4 in Aluminum case $145 (recommended) JS1 DR4 w/ no case $125 So lets play newbie who buys 3 DMX controllers: (assuming shipping/plugs/enclosure/ect all the same price) LOR scenario: 3 controllers ($360) and 1 DR4 ($145) Total $505 D-light scenario: 3 controllers ($285) and 1 DR4 ($145) Total $430 Lynx scenario: 3 controllers ($195) and 1 DR4 (145) Total $340 Edited by ChrisL1976 - 13 Jul 2011 at 7:40am |
||||
Chris
www.lightsonsixth.com |
||||
tonyjmartin
Senior Member Joined: 11 Dec 2007 Location: Traverse City, MI, USA Online Status: Offline Posts: 144 |
Quote Reply Posted: 13 Jul 2011 at 9:19am | |||
No one has raised this issue. Don't ask such a question, assume an answer, and then insert it into the debate as if it supports anyone's position. And to make a comparison to a CADD program that costs thousands of dollars to show us how well off we are is absurd.
No. From Aurora's Facebook comments, it is quite clear. The D-Light and LOR protocols were modified to address pic-related controller issues, and to incorporate support for them into future versions of Aurora has been deemed too problematic.
That is not what Aurora has brought to the table. I can handle a sucky situation and refit my controllers to DMX if that is where things are going. But here is what has been happening: We are told that updates are coming, and they don't. We are told that our hardware will be supported at earlier firmware, and then it is not. We are told that DMX will be supported, and then we are told that it will REQUIRE another type of adapter costing nearly five times that of the DMX-capable dongle that D-Light users already own. I find this progression of events unacceptable.
THAT is the heart of the issue, and it is continually being deluted by telling us how wonderful something that we do not need will be for us. |
||||
Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
|
||||
ChrisL1976
Beta Testers Joined: 01 Sep 2008 Location: Kankakee, Ill Online Status: Offline Posts: 1341 |
Quote Reply Posted: 13 Jul 2011 at 10:16am | |||
Seriously, I can insert what ever I wish into this conversation since development and support cost are always an issue. It is that difficult to see that no money equals no support or any development. We all know this economy is making everyone cut cost and look at whats going to bring in money. Now whether the software costs are $100 or $10,000, its makes no difference, its all comparable. Its companies like Autodesk are producing products yearly. Updating old versions to new ones. Do you seriously think they could do that without the subscription program. Money for development and support has to come from somewhere. ESPECIALLY in a niche market like this. In a competitive niche market, new users are not going to cut it. Companies like LOR can use hardware sales to support their software R & D. Unfortunately, Aurora has no product line to help with the this. I'm not going to get into LSP's method. |
||||
Chris
www.lightsonsixth.com |
||||
tonyjmartin
Senior Member Joined: 11 Dec 2007 Location: Traverse City, MI, USA Online Status: Offline Posts: 144 |
Quote Reply Posted: 13 Jul 2011 at 10:47am | |||
I respectfully disagree. And I am dumbfounded as to what you are accomplishing by repeatedly offering your own justifications for Aurora's business decisions. None of this has occurred in a vacuum, so I dare say that most of us are already aware of the circumstances surrounding recent events. But many very publicly loyal users have been adversely affected by Aurora's actions, so we are voicing our displeasure with this continued pattern. If you have not been harmed, then I ask that you give Aurora the opportunity to respond to its users' concerns as it sees fit. Edited by tonyjmartin - 13 Jul 2011 at 11:37am |
||||
Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
|
||||
bdkeen
Beta Testers Joined: 31 Dec 2007 Location: Easton,PA Online Status: Offline Posts: 380 |
Quote Reply Posted: 13 Jul 2011 at 5:32pm | |||
Christmas Lighting of this nature is definitely a niche' market. Don't know about anyone else but I've been asked so many times I can't remember by folks looking and wanting to get involved what I recommend in both hardware and software.. I've always highly recommended Aurora..
Would I now recommend Aurora? Not sure I would any more, will have to wait and see what the future brings to those of us not ready to fully jump on the DMX train. Perhaps if we had the knowledge and experiences that someone in the beta group has had and could have grown along with Aurora to the point the decision was made we might be singing a different tune. But to have been slightly mislead to think a newer, better version was just around the corner, then told DMX only (and I think that was announced in Facebook - don't think there's the same official announcement on these forums to date and Aurora web site pages point at 1.1 - not one word of mention what's going on here and on facebook) But for the moment when someone asks me "What's the best software for doing the lights?" I'm not going to be able to give them the same answer as I once did - will probably just keep silent. On another thought - Whatever happened to the plug-in concept? Much the same as Vixen currently supports the many different controllers and devices? Will this new fangled DMX only version support plug-ins for various controller and device types?
|
||||
ChrisL1976
Beta Testers Joined: 01 Sep 2008 Location: Kankakee, Ill Online Status: Offline Posts: 1341 |
Quote Reply Posted: 13 Jul 2011 at 8:52pm | |||
I'm just merely voicing my opinion on my stance on the situation. Kind of like you are voicing you opinion on every post someone makes. I'm sure when Michael sees fit, I am sure he will let us know what his plan is. |
||||
Chris
www.lightsonsixth.com |
||||
JohnnyL
Pre-Order User Joined: 17 Dec 2007 Location: Merced Ca Online Status: Offline Posts: 67 |
Quote Reply Posted: 13 Jul 2011 at 9:38pm | |||
A brief history. I am a pre order customer. I, like many was
a little “frustrated” (I’m being nice here) with Spectrum. We all remember our
shows not working as they should. I discovered the John |
||||
"In God We Trust" all others pay cash
|
||||
tonyjmartin
Senior Member Joined: 11 Dec 2007 Location: Traverse City, MI, USA Online Status: Offline Posts: 144 |
Quote Reply Posted: 13 Jul 2011 at 10:37pm | |||
I am not voicing my opinion on "every post someone makes." And just because you make an analogy, that doesn't make it true. But I'll make one, since you seem to like them so much. Having a discussion with you is like trying to reason with a drunk, so I will modify my polite request to more aptly coincide with your level of understanding: With all due respect. Chris, SHUT THE f**k UP! |
||||
Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
|
||||
Post Reply | Page <1 56789 10> |
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |