2010 Aurora Status / DMX beta

Originally posted by BigDPS How come nobody can answer my tiny question "where can we have this beta copy where the copy and paste is fixed?"

[/QUOTE] I'm not ready to shell out the cash on RGB until a sequencing software is shown to be reliable and relatively easy to use.  Although the RGB stuff is really cool and awesome! Every video of it I see makes it harder and harder for me to hold my conservative position.

For those who have been asking:

I have considered an open beta with our current progress so far.  What is holding us back from doing this is:

1) Although Aurora itself is working with the new copy/paste and all sorts of goodies, we did make a slight change to the DLS file.  With that comes a file converter to upgrade old DLS files to new ones, and there is one bug left remaining in the DLS upgrade code that is outstanding (specifically, there are glitches with the ramp durations post-upgrade).  I don't want to release a version which is known to trash sequence files.

2) There is a licensing issue to deal with.  We've added a new third party component to Aurora.  We don't have to license this for beta testing (we just use demo mode), but before we can release it to the public we need to license the component.  Paying for this is scheduled just prior to release because a new version generates sales (to pay for the component); an interim beta does not.

3) D-Light and LOR output is known to be broken in the current version because it contains the broken protocol changes.  You can write sequence files with it, but you can't do anything with them.  Due to the DLS changes, the files created with the new version may or may not be compatible with the old scheduler.

For a public beta, items #1 and #2 would have to be addressed immediately.  Item #3 can be fairly easily rolled back to the old protocol for the D2XX driver only (not VCP).  This plan would require another beta test cycle which would take about a month or so to make sure everything is working together properly.  That is a throw away month because it is already known that the protocol is going away anyway.

I know it is controversial, but we need to be moving forward right now, not backward.  If we stay stuck in the mud we will have another chaotic 2009 support situation all over again.

As for how niche of a market this is, I'm going to share some aggregate statistics (something few businesses will do):  over a five year development cycle, we have issued 313 Aurora keys.  Over two thirds of those were issued in 2008.  The majority of keys were not issued at full price.  Even if we had a spotless reputation (which we by far do not), almost everyone who would consider buying Aurora has already done so.  Our year-to-date sales: one.  Our expected sales with a flawless release: maybe 10 if we are lucky.  I have dropped in and out of development to pursue other projects because this one clearly does not pay the bills.  To top it off, I have dealt with serious family illnesses, which, when your business isn't profitable anyway, take priority.

We have enough changes to Aurora in the beta cycle right now that by all means I should be stamping "2.0" on it and asking for money all over again.  I never expected the 1.x version to endure a 5+ year life cycle.  The problem is, I made a promise to deliver DMX as a part of the 1.x series and, even if it takes longer than expected, I intend to deliver on that promise.

It's pretty bad when I wouldn't even buy my own software right now because things are such a mess.  That is why it is time to put aside the proprietary stuff (LOR & D-Light protocols, FTDI based dongles and drivers, etc.) which have been nothing but support trouble for years now and to move on by focusing on stability and standards (DMX over E1.31 [TCP/IP stack]).  When stability returns to normal instead of the exception, then we can discuss re-introducing some proprietary protocols as plugins.  Until then, this is the direction Aurora must go.

BTW - If a version 2 ever happens as a commercial product, it will be priced near the $300 target (instead of $100) and will only come with one year of support (instead of entire major version support like we did with 1.x) *or* it will introduce a tiered pricing system.

LOR will always have the advantage over the competition here because, due to hardware sales, they can keep the software discounted to the $100 price point where nobody else can compete price wise.  With the number of competitors out there right now it really isn't possible for anyone not tied to a hardware operation to keep selling the software at the $100 price point.  The only sales traction anyone has with this many competitors is that everyone loves to jump from software to software looking for the next best thing... which is where Aurora is at a loss because we're still stuck dealing with problems from 2009!  It's time for Aurora to move on past this.

Michael

Michael,
I think you should just call this next DMX version "Aurora 2.0" and charge us for it.  This will give you some income and hopefully allow you to work on it more.  I am willing to pay $300 if it works great.  I will convert my all of my controllers to DMX, if I can get some software that gives me all options that I have now with the D-light protocol. 


Edited by brunnesa - 18 Jul 2011 at 10:30am

Michael,

To me it is more than obvious that your priorities should be:

1. Your Family and your own well being
2. Your lively-hood (directly related to number one)

     9. Your development of Aurora

In regards to the development of Aurora I think you should move forward to produce a new product that will be stable and then work on features the users are asking for beyond the core features.  As far as the 1.x development goes if it is possible to put out a semi stable version without DMX that isn't going to require a large investment of time do so.

Another option is to maybe partner up with another software out there such as X-lights which is a stable show playing system allowing you to concentrate on the sequencer part of the program OR go to a collaborative effort in which you would no longer be charging for the software but it would free your time up to do other paying projects...  

Ultimately what ever you decide to do I appreciate your efforts to date and support whatever you decide to and I am sure many others do too. 

Originally posted by LightsOnLogan If anyone has a better idea I'm all ears, but until then y'all are aware of the reality of the situation and why we are burning bridges to move forward. Michael