Jands Vista S3 and PC based consoles

[jfitzpat]

paulears, jfitzpat: Having spent a while with the software, the BlueLite X1 looks great... if we were doing mostly theatre oriented stuff with not much busking. It just doesnt have the rapid fire accessibility of some of the other options.

 

I've have to disagree with that a bit. You can go from any cue to any other at any speed and the system will calculate the in between. With a small two scene controller attached to it (any DMX or MIDI), it is a very powerful live option. I know some very large shows that have been run 'on the fly' and 'sight unseen'. If you want a goto type approach with set times (like a Hog), look more closely at the live panel. It may seem like a DJ's screen, but with fade, once, and crossfade, along with 4 seperate sequences, it can make a pretty decent sectional player.

 

Another aspect that gets overlooked is that we are truly addative. Most desks for intells aren't, primarily because it requires the desk to understand both multi purpose channels and interrelated channel on movers. But it lets you build up different types of base cues for different types of shows. Positions, colors, gobos, and effects (movement generation) can all be split out then mixed and matched at will.

 

Of course, different approaches resonate with different folks (that's why we offer so many ways to use basic cues).

 

On a different subject - I agree with the post about tactile input. Our Live Panel has gotten to the point where I have seen it run corporate events and a few live shows (Big Pro just did Brian Wilson (no set playlist) with only the laptop), but two scenes of 12 or 24 is an awfully powerful way to go, since you can not only mix and match cues, but not have to live with preset fade times for the transitions (or fiddle on the fly). Just start treating movers like really powerful par cans... In any event, if you need more on the fly bump and flash than I just saw at a show we controlled in Vegas, I've *got* to visit your church! ;-)

 

We stayed away from a dedicated wing (we'll take any DMX in or MIDI in) because of cost to the user. We figured it isn't just the cost of one, but the cost and availability of full backup.

 

As far as cost I'm not sure I buy the argument that you wind up at the price of a conventional desk. When YLS bought all new systems (laptop, 2 scene external board, x1) for the four 'Monsters' shows, each system was well under $2000, and those were 4 universe systems. The seven Coke/Nascar systems (TSI?) were one universe and came in under $1000.

 

To All: Sorry to sound like an ad! You have to understand that I've been waiting for a PC revolution in lighting since '87 (when I first sent a personal computer out as a major controller on a big tour). Lower cost is a consideration - especially when you start trying to think about full backup type reliability or the capitol investement involved in running concurrent shows. But I've been waiting so long I'm not just interested in mimicing consoles, but in seeing new features and approaches as well. So when the subject turns to what product is good for what application, I start spouting off.

 

-jjf

[mac.calder]

As a general rule, you cannot beat a real live console.

 

Now 'computer' lighting control has it's purposes, no questions, however a proper console has been designed by professionals to offer the best possible control surface they can come up with.

 

For example - Take your Strand (3|5)xx. Complex operations on the strand take a few button presses and it is done, this is on aging technology - PC based, tends to be largely 'click based' - which, no matter what anyone says, takes longer than using a keyboard.

 

Add to that the fact that the software is designed to cross multiple screens - now correct me if I am wrong, but there is no lighting package available at the moment which is capable of working effectively over multiple screens. Now even using decent interface design, there is only a certain ammount of information you can fit onto a screen.

 

Now I have played with the bluelight X1, I would love to own one, and could certainly see myself using one for certain applications, but when push comes to shove I prefer a console.

 

That said, if blue light were to actually create an operating system (or rather cut down a current operating system (win or linux)) and build their control application over the top, add multi head support to their application and provid customisable shortcut support so that I can add on a macro keyboard, by adding a cheap console, I can certainly see the bluelight becoming a great console replacer.

[AndrewR]

Just to add my 2p.

 

Download the MagicQ software, play with it, then ring them and ask for a price list.

 

To me it was like using Hog2PC but with more logical programing. The PC wing has 2 outputs and 10 playbacks, with a 24 playback wing available. I have used it without wings and its quite good, the main advantage is price compared to most of the other things available. And it will do some very clever things too. And its designed to only use 1 monitor, although you can attach more.

 

Although as pointed out, for busking you do need the wings. Although MagicQ will do DMX merging so you can use your existing desk to control some things.

[jfitzpat]

Add to that the fact that the software is designed to cross multiple screens - now correct me if I am wrong, but there is no lighting package available at the moment which is capable of working effectively over multiple screens. Now even using decent interface design, there is only a certain ammount of information you can fit onto a screen.

 

FWIW, dual monitor support has already become the norm on many new graphics cards. Also, it is the norm for most new 'M' based laptops. So, you can take a a new low cost laptop, buy a $150 17" LCD monitor, and have a two monitor setup that still fits in a small carry on bag. I sometimes run on 4 screens when I am debugging.

 

Now I have played with the bluelight X1, I would love to own one, and could certainly see myself using one for certain applications, but when push comes to shove I prefer a console.

 

Thanks, and not nec. disagree on a console. There are some features unique to the X1 that I would like to see in a full on console. But the original design goal was big board power for mortal operators with mortal budgets. Yes, I could picture some really nice tactile surfaces tightly coupled with the software, but gearing towards generic tactile support was more in keeping with the original goals for the product.

 

That said, if blue light were to actually create an operating system (or rather cut down a current operating system (win or linux)) and build their control application over the top, add multi head support to their application and provid customisable shortcut support so that I can add on a macro keyboard, by adding a cheap console, I can certainly see the bluelight becoming a great console replacer.

 

Well, at 30Hz data update rate for 2000+ fixtures on 16 universes - while surfing the web or playing MP3 files, I think we've done a pretty decent job on the real time engine. Having done processor ports and kernel development for Linux as a day job, that one doesn't hold much appeal for me. I'd really like to eventually do a native Mac version, doing some other projects for OS X really reinspired me on the platform.

 

We've been making the new application pages all skinnable and included the Automation API, so we definately are open to custom extensions and support. A command line extension keeps getting discussed, but we've yet to come up with a design that is a good fit for the overall product (we both decouple 'devices' from physical channels and do not use a 'lowest common denominator' to fit fixtures into the system).

 

Again, it isn't for everyone, but we do listen and do try to keep improving the product for different groups of users.

 

-jjf

[mac.calder]

FWIW, dual monitor support has already become the norm on many new graphics cards. Also, it is the norm for most new 'M' based laptops. So, you can take a a new low cost laptop, buy a $150 17" LCD monitor, and have a two monitor setup that still fits in a small carry on bag. I sometimes run on 4 screens when I am debugging.

 

I know operating systems and many pc's support dual headed (or multi head) display - my home PC has had 3 screens for the last 6 years (although it has undergone many an upgrade), however the SOFTWARE does not. For example, I like to have a screen with all the fixture intensities, I have not seen a PC based lighting control system which uses multiple screens effectively.

[Tomo]

Actually, Hog 2 PC lets you use multiple display windows.

 

You can have up to two extra windows - go into 'Setup', "Control Panel" softkey and then set "Display 1" and "Display 2" to whatever sizes you want.

The extra windows pop up, and you can put them whereever you want within the Windows desktop.

 

Once you have them, you use the usual window move and setup and "save view" softbutton to get the view(s) you want.

I like output and cuelist in my extras most of the time, with palettes sat in the touchscreen pair.

 

If I have two monitors, I tend to put the standard pair and the screen interface on one monitor, and then stuff either one or two onto the second monitor depending on resolution and what I'm doing.

Tri-monitor would be even better of course, as I could have my extra two much bigger!

 

Edit - Cool! I never thought to try this before:

 

The extra windows work as normal 'touchscreen' ones as well, so you can have all four full-size palette screens available if you want.

Nice one FPS!

[peternewman]

The disadvantage with Hog 2 PC though, is that although it supports multiple windows, if you're screen is at 1024x768 (and is an LCD so you cant increase the resolution) you can't fit the two standard windows on one screen, so you have to use a second screen just to fit them and the control window onscreen.

 

PN

[lampieman]

Hi, what lighting do you run there now? I was there back last september and you didnt have much then...

 

anyway back on topic.. is Second hand desks ruled out? as there is a Secondhand Pearl on AC Lighting bargain pages.

 

just noticed it and thought of this topic.

[BlueShift]

Hi, what lighting do you run there now? I was there back last september and you didnt have much then...

 

Im going to assume this is directed at me...

 

We still run the same small touring system we had last september, this thread links in with a brand new lighting rig we are about to purchase for our main venue, we have completely overhauled our sound and vision, and so now its onto the lights. The new rig will be many times what we currently have as a temporary system.

 

Well of all the ones I've listed, the s3 is the only contender I feel.

 

Cheers

[tygrysm]

Did you think about Compulite Dlite?

[merlin24]

I agree with you, I like the vista's way of doing things - definately worth a demo I think....

 

 

Chris,

Email me off forum or PM me and we'll sort a demo out for you, no problems.

 

Regards

Andy

[BlueShift]

Thanks for all the replies so far - im gonna take a serious look at the S3 and I'll make sure I post a detailed report here on the blue room. the killer feature has to be being based around a timeline - so logical!

 

I've also seen that second hand pearl on AC's site...

 

Keep it coming!

[dbuckley]

As a general rule, you cannot beat a real live console.

This has been troubling me since I read it, I dont agree with it, but I've found it quite difficult to explain why.

 

It is certainly the case that consoles are much better for certain classes of job, and the less certain one is of the show, then the bigger busking surface one has is better, within reason, for very simple reasons like having hundereds of pages of subsmasters but only 8 faders is less convenient than a deskful of instantly accessible looks.

 

But what about non-busking shows? Plays, musicals, stuff with structure? Stuff that frankly is all cue stacks and go buttons, where is the advantage of a console in that? I suppose it depends what you mean by "console", a wingless M24 isn't exactly a buskers dream, though I've put on many shows with such a beast, its a console, but not what most folks think of when using the word "console".

 

Anyway, I've got a theory. My real life has been about IT, and in IT we use a couple of terms to describe the way we build systems, "from the top down", or "from the bottom up". Both are valid approaches, but they do things very differently, and I think exactly the same thing occurs in lightingsville.

 

A conventional console operator is a bottom upper. The thing you start with is a bunch of channels, possibly softpatched to make the desk physically more convenient. You create a look, and save the look. When you have a bunch of looks, you'll assemble them into a cuestack, and end up with a show.

 

As a computer lightist, I do it the other way round, I'm a top downer. I start by creating a show, then build the cuelist to represent the show. Then I'll add named memories, that one day will contain the looks, attaching them into the cuelist as I go. Once I know what lights I'll have (which could be weeks later), I'll then create named channels to create my desk layout, and maybe a lve mimic layout. I may even have a guess at what levels channels will be at. Finally, at the theatre I'll rig, softpatch, and then tune the named looks.

 

We end up in the same place - a show run from a go button - but got there using two different routes. Now I now OLEs bring some of the computer approach to consoles, but I'm still not convinced its the whole way there, the thought processes still seem to start from looks, not from the show.

[richardw9]

Hi Chris, If you'd like to PM me I'll be happy to do a demo of grandMA - the consoles and PC sw. Richard

[BlueShift]

Thanks for that dbuckley, a good post

 

I think the other important thing to note is that although I used the term 'PC based consoles' and I know for some that conjured up nasty images of blue screens and caused them to feel an uneasyness in their gut - BUT, the line between hardware and software is very different nowadays - a maxxyz is windows XP under the hood, so, of course, is the vista in all its flavours - the grandma is very much software driven. The Frog 2 is again very software driven, with the control surface being an extension of the software and not the other way around.

 

So although it may appear im being reckless and thinking outside the box by going down the software based route (whether it be PC, mac or *nix based) most of todays big shows are very much run by computer systems in cunning disguise :(

 

Ultimately there is no right or wrong in this debate - its all about matching up requirments with solutions. in theory (although this remains to be seen after I demo it) the S3 (and indeed the lightjockey, albeit not for this purpose) have a great deal of busking capability - the vista has 20 instant recall memories/states - 10 with faders, 10 without. These can recall anything from a sequence of events to a preset (a palette) not to mention they can of course be reconfigured using simple 'drag n drop' lists on the interface. This arguably provides greater flexibility than many sraight busking consoles.

 

Ultimately, im looking for a Jack Of All Trades console - I cant get a theatre desk, or a rock n roll desk - I need a combination of both because that is the type of environment I work in. Its not just for shows, its a light control system for a variety of events - we have events that fit into all of the major control-style categories - dance/club, rock n pop, theatre, corporate event - its all there.

 

So yeah, in short, with the line between hardware and software being blurred and integration becoming commonplace I dont think overall capability of either the console or computer camps is an issue - its more what suits the style of control best...