Hows everyone getting on with Aurora?

Message Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic Printable Version

   Just wanted to get some feedback on folks using the 0.2 release?

What I have found is that sequencing is very different to other S/W packages, and in my opinion, it's much faster with the start and end markers that help you to break up sequences in logical "blocks and then add the "effect" between the markers.

One sequence I composed on another application, which took me about 35-40 hours. With Aurora, I can do a similar sequence in 5-6 hours, really becuase of the "markers" help me to sequence more accurately and fasters.

The scheduler is working fine each night for the last 3 nights with no real major bugs to report (bugs only really pop-up if I do something stupid).

Imported sequences are generally much larger in file size (600k to 700k Bytes) because Aurora has to assign "timing" points to them. Whereas native Aurora sequences are much "cleaner" because the user defines the timing points themselves and hence the files are 100-200K Bytes, also becuase they are smaller they start up quicker in the Scheduler and also save more quickly.

Author	Message Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic Printable Version
peteandvanessa Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Beta Testers Joined: 11 Dec 2007 Location: Rocklin, CA Online Status: Offline Posts: 206	Quote Reply Topic: Hows everyone getting on with Aurora? Posted: 18 Dec 2007 at 4:44pm
	Just wanted to get some feedback on folks using the 0.2 release? What I have found is that sequencing is very different to other S/W packages, and in my opinion, it's much faster with the start and end markers that help you to break up sequences in logical "blocks and then add the "effect" between the markers. One sequence I composed on another application, which took me about 35-40 hours. With Aurora, I can do a similar sequence in 5-6 hours, really becuase of the "markers" help me to sequence more accurately and fasters. The scheduler is working fine each night for the last 3 nights with no real major bugs to report (bugs only really pop-up if I do something stupid). Imported sequences are generally much larger in file size (600k to 700k Bytes) because Aurora has to assign "timing" points to them. Whereas native Aurora sequences are much "cleaner" because the user defines the timing points themselves and hence the files are 100-200K Bytes, also becuase they are smaller they start up quicker in the Scheduler and also save more quickly.

Comporder1 Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Visit Members Homepage Add to Buddy List DMX Joined: 11 Dec 2007 Location: Brookhaven, MS Online Status: Offline Posts: 163	Quote Reply Posted: 18 Dec 2007 at 9:22pm
	I have not had the opportunity yet to create a whole new sequence in Aurora. I have done several "repairs" to imports and have begun to finish one seqence that I imported. Things do seem to be very straight forward and stream-lined. I can't wait for V1 with more features. LightsOnLogan, Any word on the next beta?? Carey

LightsOnLogan Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Admin Group Joined: 11 Oct 2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 3187	Quote Reply Posted: 19 Dec 2007 at 11:13am
	The beta testers are working with 0.2.12 right now. I don't have a date for 0.3 (the next public release) yet.


Slinkard Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List DMX Joined: 10 Dec 2007 Location: El Cajon CA Online Status: Offline Posts: 243	Quote Reply Posted: 19 Dec 2007 at 10:48pm
	Alright this is GREAT. I mean I have my issues (very small gripes really) but man my show is running fast as HELL you might of bleep that last word so H-E-hockey stick-hockey stick Thank you again Lee

Slinkard Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List DMX Joined: 10 Dec 2007 Location: El Cajon CA Online Status: Offline Posts: 243	Quote Reply Posted: 19 Dec 2007 at 10:48pm
	dang it, whats the link again for the logo?

Slinkard Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List DMX Joined: 10 Dec 2007 Location: El Cajon CA Online Status: Offline Posts: 243	Quote Reply Posted: 19 Dec 2007 at 11:10pm
	Nevermind, much now I can see when I look through forums, lightsonlogon i think it was you I sent over some emails too earlier. let me know if you need the audio to go with??? Lee
	Coming soon www.computerizedlights.com

dropforge Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Pre-Order User Joined: 21 Dec 2007 Location: Fort Wayne IN Online Status: Offline Posts: 8	Quote Reply Posted: 24 Dec 2007 at 9:20am
	Just got one song done in Aurora. Between the weather, work, balloon events and being sick for a week my display is a 1/3 of what it should be. I just about thru in the towel this week but my wife said why not try and get one song done. That said I just could not bring myself to use Spectrum with all its bugs and resouce problems. So I purchased Aurora. Right off the bat the smooooooth marching bar was wonderful!!!!!!. That skipping bar in Spectrum was about to drive me nuts. I did find that my programing time was about a 1/3 less once I caught on. The visualizer is the best of all three programs that I have used. Hats off to the programers. I tried to import a couple of D-Ligtht sequences but after a half an hour it hung and I gave up. So far I have had no issues with the scheduler. I have had some issues with short event times and one channel sticking on but it may be a board thing. It would be nice if you could: Mark/tap a time spot while you are playing. Set the space bar so you can start/stop the player during loop and then place an event with the mouse. Its kind of clunky right now Need an easier way to lay down timing events thru the entire song. Unless I'm wrong the only way to do it right now is to start copying and pasting. Maybe a tool that will set say a .1 or selectable time for the entire song. All said I'm quite happy with my purchase. It's sad that D-light seems to have taken a path with the engine that they are using for programming. The further they get with the end product in terms of it doing what it needs to the more resouce hungry it gets. I think they need to re-think things from the ground up. I am not going to buy a dual core, memory fat machine just to do some christmas lights sequencing. Mine is no slouch but just the same -----Dlight is now over the edge. Thanks much keep up the good work Chuck

peteandvanessa Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Beta Testers Joined: 11 Dec 2007 Location: Rocklin, CA Online Status: Offline Posts: 206	Quote Reply Posted: 24 Dec 2007 at 10:03am
	I agree with you Chuck, Programming is much faster with Aurora than Spectrum. When using Spectrum 0.5 on a Dual Core Laptop and 2 Gig RAM, it was just unusable, but flipping to to Aurora was fantastic. The visualization is much better on Aurora and also shows the cell levels when you drop the lights back to say 25% one etc. The scheduler is very simple to use, however, it does show a slight lag when it loads complex sequences. But the caveat here is that the lag is due to complex sequences that have been imported from Spectrum. When you write them in Aurora, it's not a problem. Here's a datapoint: 48 channel imported from Spectrum (76,672 events, 2141 snap points) 48 channels written in Aurora (2,993 events, 289 snap points) 48 Channels written in Aurora (7,596 events 439 snap points) The problem I believe is that Spectrum is CELL based meaning that for a 3 min song at 0.1 secs per cell, will have 86,400 cells to keep track of, versus the two examples from Aurora above. Hence the file sizes in Spectrum are significantly bigger (I've seen 2 - 4 times larger in Spectrum). So when it is also coupled with Spectrum .NET architecture, you are in a whole load of pain performance wise. And it will get worse as folks increase the numbers of channels. Whereas Auroras simpler, cleaner design and low overhead, I can run 48 channels back on a single core P4 at 2Gig and only 700M Ram. I will say again, I'm very, very pleased with Aurora. Way to go Aurora Team!!!!

LightsOnLogan Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Admin Group Joined: 11 Oct 2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 3187	Quote Reply Posted: 24 Dec 2007 at 1:34pm
	Eventually I will put together a "sequencing in Aurora" tutorial... There is quite a paradigm shift from other programs to Aurora. While it is possible to lay down a fixed .1 set of events, doing so greatly limits the flexibility that Aurora provides. I'll leave it as an excercise to the reader to figure out how to create a .1 grid in Aurora (hint: it involves the selection tool and a mouse right click). Once you've tried the new way though, I doubt you'll want to go back to the fixed grid way. Basically, the quickest way to sequence in Aurora is to use the waveform and the grid to "rough in" your events with the event place tool. After you have them roughed in, place some events and then test them in the visualizer. You can then go back to the grid to drag the event line to a new position and test again (all attached events move with it). Sometimes it is helpful to highlight and play a small section of the waveform to better hear what you see. Before long (with some practice) you'll be dropping them very close to where they belong with very little adjustment necessary. Had a fixed .1 grid been there, you'd have to redraw all of your events instead of just moving the already placed event line. Here's the great part... you've only seen 1/3 of the planned functionality. Alternate views to the classic "waveform view" are coming. In order to maintain the surprise I can't say much more, but rest assured it will be very, very powerful.


peteandvanessa Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Beta Testers Joined: 11 Dec 2007 Location: Rocklin, CA Online Status: Offline Posts: 206	Quote Reply Posted: 24 Dec 2007 at 3:53pm
	100% agree with you, there's no way I want to go back to the cell based sequencing. I think that the way Aurora does it is far, far nicer and more intuitive. The other reason is that the Aurora way makes it far faster to sequence with and is more accurate timing wise. Can't wait to see the new features, it's got me drooling