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 56789 10>
Author
Message
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
deweycooter View Drop Down
Development
Development


Joined: 14 Oct 2007
Location: League City, TX
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 674
  Quote deweycooter Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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
Back to Top
bdkeen View Drop Down
Beta Testers
Beta Testers


Joined: 31 Dec 2007
Location: Easton,PA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 380
  Quote bdkeen Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.
 
 
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 7:38am
Originally posted by BigDPS


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.


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
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 9:19am
Originally posted by ChrisL1976

Do we really expect unpaid upgrades for years? <snip> What if Aurora followed software company examples like Autodesk

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.

Originally posted by deweycooter

It really sounds like there's more at play here than any of us know.

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.

Originally posted by deweycooter

Tony, I agree.  It kinda sucks. <snip> But it just seems that using DMX going forward is going to simplify things.  <snip> If the sequence data is compatible, then we might only be looking at converting controllers to DMX, not a new adapter.

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.

Originally posted by BigDPS

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.

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
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 10:16am
Originally posted by tonyjmartin


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.

 

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
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 10:47am
Originally posted by ChrisL1976

Now whether the software costs are $100 or $10,000, its makes no difference, its all comparable.

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
Back to Top
bdkeen View Drop Down
Beta Testers
Beta Testers


Joined: 31 Dec 2007
Location: Easton,PA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 380
  Quote bdkeen Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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?
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 8:52pm
Originally posted by tonyjmartin

then I ask that you give Aurora the opportunity to respond to its users' concerns as it sees fit.



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
Back to Top
JohnnyL View Drop Down
Pre-Order User
Pre-Order User
Avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2007
Location: Merced Ca
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 67
  Quote JohnnyL Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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 Aurora site and bought it on the spot. Although I was still using LOR to get through that season, we planned to use Aurora in 09. All I could say was WOW, how simple it was going to be to program the new RGB stuff we had planned. This was a very nice program, simple, basic and easy use. Then, we discovered the “freak strobe like effects” bug when hooked up to a DCx16 (or 3). I reported this “bug” and though a couple of people did try to help, (you know who you are) the “big guy” was absent and this problem was never resolved. Doing some testing I also discovered importing  channels from an existing sequence didn’t work very well. All of the “f...fly” channels import flawlessly, the other RGB channels did not! This had to be remedied manually. It doesn’t really take that much time to do but it is hassle and this should have been addressed… it was not addressed. It was barely even acknowledged. We decided to use Aurora despite its “little bugs”. Although we were (2) songs short in 09 because of the DCx16 thing we still had a good season, I wont say it was flawless but all in all it was good. The scheduler has its “bugs”. Aurora likes to entertain the good folks from the bar 2 blocks away staring @midnight. That was pretty funny when I shut it down @1:30am and heard cars starting and leaving. I saw others were experiencing the same “bug” with no results. Now, I no longer trust this program to run my shows. I’ve become convinced the powers that be have absolutely no interest in addressing my issues or anyone else’s for that matter. Updates, fixes and deadlines too numerous to count were promised and none have come to pass. Then, right after a very good friend of mine purchased one of last licenses, he decides to make Aurora “Freeware”. He is still not too happy about that. (sorry Danny) So my credibility takes a hit. I won’t elaborate further on credibility. Then Aurora is back in business, all is well. More promises are made, deadlines and guarantees and goodwill flows again. Then, he announces on “Facebook” (not here of coarse) that it will be DMX only! Are you kidding me? REALLY ? It isn’t our fault that you cannot or will not keep up on firmware updates coming from D-Light or LOR and adapt Aurora to stay current. It must be a lot easier from Aurora’s standpoint to take the DMX route. The competition does it all, if you haven’t noticed. Maybe, just maybe if there was some kind of consistency coming from Aurora sales might have been higher. Don’t you think? Do you think there is a reason “beta testers” don’t have the same problems we do is because they are using a “newer version” that isn’t available to the rest of us? I will purchase LSP for this year and relegate Aurora to be a backup program just in case LSP hasn’t fixed anything either. He seems to know who is buttering the bread over there and actually DOES try to fix things. So I guess instead of paying to upgrade my Aurora license (which I was fully prepared to do) Ill spend it on LSP instead and we’ll see what happens…

 

John

"In God We Trust" all others pay cash
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 10:37pm
Originally posted by ChrisL1976

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 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
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 56789 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 1.984 seconds.