Aurora Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > Aurora Sequencer Software > Aurora 1.0
  Active Topics Active Topics
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Calendar   Register Register  Login Login

2010 Aurora Status / DMX beta

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 45678 10>
Author
Message
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
ChrisL1976 View Drop Down
Beta Testers
Beta Testers


Joined: 01 Sep 2008
Location: Kankakee, Ill
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1341
  Quote ChrisL1976 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jul 2011 at 4:47pm
You do have to realize that one DR4 has the capability of allowing you up to 8,192 channels.


Edited by ChrisL1976 - 12 Jul 2011 at 4:48pm
Chris

www.lightsonsixth.com
Back to Top
tonyjmartin View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 11 Dec 2007
Location: Traverse City, MI, USA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 144
  Quote tonyjmartin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jul 2011 at 5:46pm
Originally posted by BigDPS

Ok I'm lost here. Does this mean that if I don't use DMX, my present system will be stuck at 1.0.69 forever ? I have no immediate intention of going DMX at the moment. I just want a quick copy paste feature from Aurora.

Please enlighten me cause I'm really confused. Damn DMX. Dead

That's exactly what it means.  The proprietary LOR and D-Light protocols are no longer supported by Aurora. Ouch

Originally posted by ChrisL1976

You do have to realize that one DR4 has the capability of allowing you up to 8,192 channels.

I'd gladly trade that for a couple hundred channels that are less tedious to sequence and a show that runs as scheduled.



Edited by tonyjmartin - 12 Jul 2011 at 5:47pm
Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
Back to Top
BigDPS View Drop Down
Beta Testers
Beta Testers
Avatar

Joined: 13 Dec 2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 471
  Quote BigDPS Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jul 2011 at 6:10pm
Before everything get's turned off in favor of DMX, why can't we have the version that had the copy and paste fiasco working? If this is the only feature that is working in the beta update you guys have been working on, then I'll be happy.

This is getting more and more frustrating. I hope Michael will come up forth and explain us why we, the "normal" users without DMX, are being dropped?

Would I pay to get the copy and paste fixed version? Yup, no problem. But to leave me hanging after patiently waiting after being promised new versions coming and so on, this is not kosher in my books.

Back to Top
tonyjmartin View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 11 Dec 2007
Location: Traverse City, MI, USA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 144
  Quote tonyjmartin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jul 2011 at 6:18pm
Originally posted by BigDPS

This is getting more and more frustrating. I hope Michael will come up forth and explain us why we, the "normal" users without DMX, are being dropped?


From the Aurora Facebook page:

I am not at liberty to discuss the details of how the proprietary protocols work, but after hours of testing we determined that in 2011 DMX is going to be the more stable protocol.

Although not everyone has experienced "sticky channels", the problem has been very real for several years and has affected dozens of Aurora customers. The proprietary protocols have undergone changes to deal with the problem, but unfortunately those changes have introduced entirely new problems. At some point we have to cut our losses with the protocols and move on. The hardware vendors seem to be doing the same thing right now by encouraging DMX development.

Back when computers were much slower and we were only controlling simple light strands it made sense for the effects processing to take place on the controller itself. Today's computing power really makes this completely unnecessary, and the old protocols really show their age when presented with modern devices such as pixel strands (the protocol bandwidth requirements do not scale well). The demands on the PIC microcontroller are much less when doing "dumb" intensity rendering without the worry of ramp timings, shimmers, twinkles, combos thereof, and the parsing of a far more complex protocol than DMX is. In this way, the PIC based controllers are automatically more reliable with DMX.


Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
Back to Top
Jonathan View Drop Down
Beta Testers
Beta Testers


Joined: 07 Sep 2008
Location: SoCal
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1237
  Quote Jonathan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jul 2011 at 10:44pm
^^^^ Micheal is spot on with that you know.  A more reliable, industry standard protocol will result in less user issues in the long run, and let's face it, there is a certain amount of relief in just knowing it will probably work.  (Yes, probably.)  As some of us well know, things can and do go wrong (and it almost always happens within a few hours before our shows go 'live', doesn't it?). 

Now imagine trying to provide support for that on two different protocol fronts.  It's time consuming, and with dual protocols supported, the chance of one piece of code for one protocol messing this up for the other protocol only increases the chance for bugs.  This could (yes, could) become a nightmare scenario from a support standpoint.  It boils down to this:  The more time Michael spends resolving protocol issues that develop each time the existing firmware is updated, the less time he spends developing the cool stuff. 

Even if someone doesn't want the ability to, say, launch a blast of fog on command in an animated Halloween display instead of relying on a hand remote or timer, many of us do.  If Aurora can't remain competitive and adaptive, it is ultimately destined to fade into oblivion.  (And let's face it.  That would really suck.)

We all know that Aurora is not Microsoft or Apple, with hundreds of programmers.  All this is because one computer programmer solved a very real problem a several years back.  That simple scheduler code turned into a vision to take what worked (well, sometimes) and Michael turned it into Aurora, something that worked better. Not perfect, but better.  And we're doing it again by moving forward into a better (and industry proven) technology with a heck of a lot more possibilities for those who want to see that happen, and we get a more stable code in DMX in which to make all this happen.  Even though there may be growing pains as we convert over, devoting our time solely to developing the potential of DMX is ultimately the best choice (just like doing away with 'close enough' automatically generated timelines has been). 

Even if the change seems drastic, it is coming nonetheless.  If Aurora is to remain competitive, it must be able to not only correctly predict the future of this hobby, it must also take us there. 


Edited by Jonathan - 12 Jul 2011 at 10:49pm
~Jonathan
Back to Top
tonyjmartin View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 11 Dec 2007
Location: Traverse City, MI, USA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 144
  Quote tonyjmartin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Jul 2011 at 12:09am
In principle, I can somewhat agree with Aurora's shifting to DMX, given the recent difficulties with the LOR and D-Light protocols.  But that is not what has been presented to us for the last six months or more.  And to move directly to E1.13 exclusively, with the far too casual attitude toward users needing to go out and buy a $145 adapter like the ECG-DR4, is unacceptable.  And the rumor that a cheaper E1.31 adapter is in the works is of little comfort when there have been promises made by Aurora that have been repeatedly broken for the last two years.

Given that many came to Aurora after Spectrum's demise in the fall of 2008, and there had been talk of an ongoing relationship between the two companies as recent as the 2010 holiday season, there are a few things worth mentioning.  Users have been polled for nearly two years as to whether or not they would want to purchase DMX firmware for D-Light, and even if they thought they had a need to use DMX at all.  The results have been consistently in the negative, on several forums.  And all the while, D-Light controllers are still being offered for sale with the D-Light protocol installed.

But for the last six months, even while there have been updates as to the offering of DMX in addition to supporting a version of the D-Light protocol, I have had my questions about supported firmware versions and the ongoing relationship be blatantly ignored by both companies.  This is again, unacceptable.  And it is too much like the situation that occurred when Spectrum was discontinued, and more recently, when Aurora went off the market to become unsupported freeware.

This history would seem to indicate that we should not trust our display plans to any further promises.  And as I said in September of 2008 when Spectrum was discontinued (link), you can come up with all the excuses you like, but:
From a customer standpoint, the "Why" is irrelevant.  A customer pays for a product suitable for the intended use.  A vendor is obliged to provide said product.
Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
Back to Top
ChrisL1976 View Drop Down
Beta Testers
Beta Testers


Joined: 01 Sep 2008
Location: Kankakee, Ill
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1341
  Quote ChrisL1976 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Jul 2011 at 12:41am
I am sure this will piss someone off, but seriously, when was the last time most of us have paid Aurora anything?  I paid for my copy of Aurora 3 years ago.  Do we really expect unpaid upgrades for years?   Being Aurora was free last year, I dont think too many people paid them anything.  If I remember right, we only get 1 year upgrades for free.  So I would think most have expired.  Now ofcourse I know Aurora wants its customers to be happy, but at some point decisions have to be made to keep the support and development costs to a minimum or they mine as well close up shop.

Here's a question......What if Aurora followed software company examples like Autodesk and required users to pay an upgrade subscription every year.  Would you pay the upfront software cost  plus a yearly fee of say $40 to ensure you had the latest and greatest version?   With the niche market this hobby is and the amount of competition, there will be a point at which new users are not going to be enough and current users will need to help keep their chosen software moving forward.

I would not think some yearly fee would be too out of line to keep the programming computer running and us users with a nice running program.


Edited by ChrisL1976 - 13 Jul 2011 at 12:59am
Chris

www.lightsonsixth.com
Back to Top
onewish1 View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: 09 Sep 2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 34
  Quote onewish1 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Jul 2011 at 4:38am
I wish someone like myself that does not have any electronics background can understand and be able to use dmx easier.  I read your posts about doing this and that.. no clue what any of that means.. I need a dummies version!!.. I am afraid to make any changes because I just do not have the knowledge you guys have.  Most of this thread is like reading a foreign language to me.  I wanted a setup & software that was easy to use, when I bought it .. it was claiming to be like that.. no upgrades since ... still the same now and then problems with both.. and actually from the get go I have been struggling with both hardware & software.  Would I pay $40.00 a year for someone to hold my hand and actually answer me from the companies when I ask a stupid question.. and not have to search though here and try and find an answer that I don't understand... heck yes!!!
Back to Top
MrChristmas2000 View Drop Down
Beta Testers
Beta Testers


Joined: 06 May 2008
Location: Georgia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 344
  Quote MrChristmas2000 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Jul 2011 at 6:49am
The problem is that hooking up a DMX network is no different that nooking up a LOR/d-light network.
 
DMX Network
Computer --> Dongel --> [(DMX in) Controller (DMX out)]  --> [(DMX in) Controller (DMX out)] etc.
 
LOR/d-ligh network
Computer --> Dongel --> [(LOR IN) Controller (LOR out)] --> [(LOR in) Controller (LOR out)] etc.
 
Cabling is exactly the same type cables. (DMX does offer some cabling options though)
 
Sequencing the same.
The big deal is that there is more equipment available that supports the DMX communications language that supports the LOR/d-light language.
 
Any questions?
 
Tom
 
 


Holding breath for DMX.
Back to Top
BigDPS View Drop Down
Beta Testers
Beta Testers
Avatar

Joined: 13 Dec 2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 471
  Quote BigDPS Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Jul 2011 at 6:51am
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, my version of Aurora is working for me. The copy and paste time is outrageous. Why can't we have the beta copy that had fixed this and be on our own? I just want to use this portion of the program, Borealis is working albeit some ghost issues but nothing to spill milk over.

I understand that is a business but still, we have been holding on empty promises for too long only to be told we, the older hobbyists with our now antique LOR/D-Light protocol, are stuck in the past with a discontinued product in favor of the DMX crowd.

I'd be curious to see who could/would afford to start this hobby tomorrow with DMX protocol versus the "old" one. I'd like to see how much money it would cost to have the same comparable effect.

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 45678 10>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.06
Copyright ©2001-2007 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.250 seconds.