2010 Aurora Status / DMX beta

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

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.

^^^^ 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

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

The problem is that hooking up a DMX network is no different that nooking up a LOR/d-light network.