PC-based controllers - bad and ugly, but do they have to be?

[Zak]

I've used a number of PC-based lighting controllers and found them all to be quite disagreeable. As both a computer programmer and a lighting designer, I'd like to do something about the situation. While I have a lot of my own ideas about what makes for a good controller, I'm sure to overlook a lot if I don't get input from other people. What would you like to see in a PC-based controller? Just as important, what would you not like to see?

[dbuckley]

Perhaps you could enumerate why you found them disagreeable...? If you like "proper" consoles you'll probably not like PC controllers and vikki viceah. Can you imagine trying to write a letter or do your accounts on a pearl?

[Ynot]

Personally, I reckon that, like lots of commercial software these days, programmers try to make it do too much and try to make it look too pretty.

 

For me, if I ever moved on to a PC based setup, it would have to be VERY easy to use, not too many bells & whistles and simple to look at.

 

But that's just me..!

[Andrew C]

I've played with a PC desk but not enough to call myself even 'introduced to' the way of working. The thing that bugged me most was the ergonomics. With a well thought out 'real' desk, the controls you need NOW are under your fingers, no need to find the mouse, spot where the cursor is, and then click/drag the fader. I accept that there are variations on how they work!

[Ken Coker]

Dear Zak

 

The road to hell is paved with crap lighting boards - and many of them were designed by people who knew about computers but knew nothing about how lighting might work....the Action 24, the Avaab Viking, almost anything by Berkey.....the horrid blue single preset thing with red faders that Zero 88 made

 

- Oh, and while I'm at it the Mini ####ing Artisan!!! Christ, I've seen grown men cry trying to get states out of that!

 

Usability is the thing. (It might be worth considering that what a lighting designer wants from a desk compared to what an operator wants.)

 

What I would do is reverse the question: why do people spend an awful lot of money on a dedicated lighting desk when, if one made a list of them, a bog standard PC/laptop can do all of them ? - and write letters and do accounts.

 

Having said that, I use both a Vista T2 and the Vista software on a PC to control gigs. While I can't stand the software version, the 16 year olds that use it think it's great and are far quicker on it than I.

 

Just a few thoughts

 

KC

[gareth]

I own a Chamsys MagicQ PC Wing, along with an 'all-in-one' touchscreen PC to run it with (all the PC components are integrated into the structure of a 17" touchscreen LCD panel so the whole thing is in one box). It is neither bad nor ugly - in fact it's a very good system which costs not very much at all and in many ways is far more capable than the Wholehog 2 that I used to own.

 

Not every PC-based controller is a thing of beauty and wonderment - but if all of the PC-based control systems you've tried have been "bad and ugly", I'd venture to suggest that you need to find some others to try out. If I were you, I'd start with the Chamsys offerings and the Vista S3 from Jands.

[Ken Coker]

I'd start with the Chamsys offerings and the Vista S3 from Jands.

 

I would concur with this.

 

KC

[david.elsbury]

IMO it depends on your style of working, and the amount of hardware input you have.

 

For example, my Lightfactory setup consists of a dual screen desktop, one of those a touchscreen, an el-cheapo MIDI keyboard set up to trigger macros and colour bumps (I mostly use it for movers) and a 48ch desk as submasters. So I have fader, button, and visual interactions with it- and for me this is perfect. But I couldn't run a show without the hardware nearly as easily.

 

Clicking on buttons on a screen and dragging virtual faders just doesn't do it for me.

 

But as has been said in other PC based desk threads, find the software you can use the easiest and then select the dongle and hardware based on that.

 

David

[Zak]

I think my complaints can be summed up pretty easily by grouping lighting software in to two categories:

 

Lighting desk in a PC - example: Wholehog PC

Most of these systems are almost indistinguishable from the lighting desk they emulate if you buy the company's input wings. They're also almost as expensive, if you buy the company's input wings. There's not really anything wrong with this, but I've had to use a Wholehog PC without the wings; it wasn't much fun.

 

Everything else - example: Elation Compu

Most of these seem to be designed by people who know a bit about programming computers, but nothing about user interface design or lighting. They tend to be very complicated and slow to program - for example, Martin LightJockey requires digging through the preferences dialog to assign a hotkey to a cue; it's not accessible from the cue editor. Most of these programs lack adequate precision for timing as well - .05 seconds seems to be the standard.

 

I'd love to give MagicQ a try, but on both of my laptops it fails to start and does not produce an error message.

[martinw]

Most of these programs lack adequate precision for timing as well - .05 seconds seems to be the standard

Most dedicated lighting consoles don't do any better than a tenth of a second, I'd consider .05 to be pretty good.

 

M

[jfitzpat]

I've used a number of PC-based lighting controllers and found them all to be quite disagreeable. As both a computer programmer and a lighting designer, I'd like to do something about the situation. While I have a lot of my own ideas about what makes for a good controller, I'm sure to overlook a lot if I don't get input from other people. What would you like to see in a PC-based controller? Just as important, what would you not like to see?

 

What I find interesting about this is that there seems to be some sort of assumption on your part that there is only one type of user. I think this is wholly wrong. I took the plunge and sent a PC out on a tour back in '87 for the Floid Droids. Part of the decision was pragmatic, the time frame just there to design and build yet another console (+ spare of course). It was just a lot easier to buy to Mac SE's and a couple of MIDI surfaces. But it also seemed like a natural progression. There wasn't that much difference between the graphics systems I worked on at LaserMedia (Epcott, Stone Mountain, a zillion tours) and a Kaypro II, and I had just put SMPTE lock on, arguably, the first PC based MIDI sequencer (Hybrid Arts was founded by some ex LaserMedia folks). Watching how rapidly PCs were accepted on stage, I thought back stage would be a no brainer.

 

Watching Marc try to realize his vision on those Pink Floid tours, with a Varilite operator, a Telescan operator, a Droid operator, a laser operator, effects operators, and a lighting desk, I had some thoughts about using PC's strengths for universal control. That 'proof of concept', ended up running some theme park spectaculars for the next 17 years. I'd occassionally get pleas for a followup (I would sometimes feel like William Shatner in the SNL 'Trekkie' skit) but I didn't really see the point. I'd proved some ideas to myself and had already gotten interested in other areas. When I finally got convinced to take another look in this area, Daniel and I did not tell ourselves that everything was crap. There were (and are) a lot of truly crappy products, but there are also some quite well done ones, what we looked at where what we perceived to be gaps and trends.

 

At the time the better products appeared to be either targetted principally at small rig applications, or a simulation of an existing desk. The latter is worthwhile, and serves a real need, but it has some drawbacks. The trends we saw were that fixture cost for intelligents had gotten out of sync with control costs and some very unlight like things (ex. media servers) were clearly on the rise (hence the dramatically higher than average update rate, no lowest common denominator fixture fitting, true SMPTE lock, etc.). So we started by targetting those areas and general direction. Since then, we've added features that make us more suitable to other market areas, etc. But I think that the idea that nothing but crap is out there is misguided. When Paulears said something similiar here, we just sent him a system to try. Our feature set and overall model might not be right for every user's need, but we've done the same thing with other nay sayers and I have yet to here one say that, perfect for them or not, we are not a serious piece of gear. And there are several other systems out there I would tour with myself.

 

I guess I am saying I agree with dbuckley (happens a lot) - why don't you start by explaining which of your needs aren't being met and give a couple of clear examples of the fresh direction you are thinking of, then you have at least given a context for positive feedback.

 

Ken Coker also nails an important point - the day to day needs of an operator and the wish list of a designer are not the same thing. For example, I've been asked why I put certain things in a rack space box or why our simplest interace is in a relatively large ribbed box. For me they were no brainers. Anyone who has held a mini mag in their teeth sweating blood 15 minutes after the house opens wants would rather have the plastic encloser you can roll a cable case over (and which has tabs to mount in something sturdier still) over the sleeker, better looking translucent plastic one. As Ynot notes, form can't get in the way of function.

 

Good Luck,

-jjf

 

Edit:

 

Most of these programs lack adequate precision for timing as well - .05 seconds seems to be the standard.

 

FWIW, we use 1/30th (matches well to video parts of the production). Also, everything locks (fades, movement generation, etc.) if you use external timebases.

 

Still, unless you are doing lasers in a arena, synced to video visuals frame by frame, 1/10th (common on most desks) is probably fine. The biggest problem I have seen is jitter in data update rates. PC's don't include real time OS's, so it actually takes some real work to keep latency and jitter done. If data update rate jitters, the timing will look sloppy no matter what intervals you spec it in.

 

-jjf

[Zak]

What I find interesting about this is that there seems to be some sort of assumption on your part that there is only one type of user. I think this is wholly wrong.

It did come across that way, didn't it? You're entirely right. Remind me not to post in the middle of the night anymore. I'm the LD for The Cruxshadows (insert standard disclaimer about opinions being my own, etc...). We bring a few of our own lights on tour, but most of the lights and the controller are provided by the venue or promoter. Our rider calls for a minimum of four moving lights and a full set of conventionals, with controllers for both. My main goal is to create a PC-based control program that I can use if I'm unhappy with the provided moving light controller, though it will also have reasonable support for conventional lights. Fast patching , programming and editing are key, as I usually only have a few hours to set up. I've noticed LDs for opening bands dealing with exactly the same issues I do, so I think there's a market that isn't being well-served by existing products. Several mid-range desks (the JB Licon series, Avolites Pearl, Hog 500/1000, etc...) would work well for most users, but simply cost too much.

I guess I am saying I agree with dbuckley (happens a lot) - why don't you start by explaining which of your needs aren't being met and give a couple of clear examples of the fresh direction you are thinking of, then you have at least given a context for positive feedback.

Most of my general complaints have to do with the amount of time required to patch fixtures and program a show, though I have specific complaints about a number of products (e.g. Zero88 Frog series often hangs when simultaneously using flash buttons and pan/tilt wheels), but most of those are failures to work as designed. A lot of what I have in mind may be more evolutionary than revolutionary, but here are some ideas:

• Labels or tags that can be applied to both fixtures and cues/sequences for programming (e.g. activate everything labeled "red", where activation might mean setting a dimmer to 100%, triggering a cue that sets a CMY wash red or selecting red on an indexed color wheel)
  
• RGB, HSV and CMY color mixing for RGB and CMY fixtures, with autoconversion between values
  
• Optional real-world values (degrees, BPM, intensity percentage, etc...) for simplicity and ease of swapping fixtures out for another type
  
• Freeze buttons for chases, optionally affecting only certain parameters, with optional fade to freeze
  
• Intensity correction profiles so that 50% intensity on a dimmer actually means 50% of the possible brightness
  

Still, unless you are doing lasers in a arena, synced to video visuals frame by frame, 1/10th (common on most desks) is probably fine. The biggest problem I have seen is jitter in data update rates. PC's don't include real time OS's, so it actually takes some real work to keep latency and jitter done. If data update rate jitters, the timing will look sloppy no matter what intervals you spec it in.

I am sometimes syncing PARs or LEDs to a drum machine. .05s isn't enough precision to get that right; it's ok if a single event is off by a few hundredths, but over time it falls out of sync. The precision on the Enttec interface I'm planning to use for development is .025s, but I want higher internal precision for the software to make sure long, repeated sequences don't get out of sync. My current timing loop works quite well; it's very good at .01s, and manages to keep the average time correct at .001s, though the timing of some individual events is off at that level of precision. It will be interesting to see if it holds up when I actually hook it up to lights.

[paulears]

What I don't understand is why the hardware side of PC based lighting controls is missing. The only real issue is real knobs and faders, the software and even the operating system isn't the problem it used to be.

 

The audio boys solved this one ages ago - real control surfaces for pro-tools, logic and cubase are all over the place - some really flashy super ones, and some budget ones like the Behringer rotary and fader panels at quite cheap prices. All the software people would have to do is extend their interface to cover usb generic panels. The software handles the programming side, but the operation side has tactile buttons and faders to prod. So a bit of software running on the pc, and a rotary panel for maybe the miving light parameters, and a fader panel for groups masters - or maybe lots of fader panels for 1-1 operation. The things are readily available, but I've not seen anybody use them. The benefit would be obvious - a common physical layout that suits your control preferences, and software that is upgradable.

 

Software can be totally new, or 'mimic' exisiting controls - in fact imagine a kind of generic control software core, that had different modes of control to suit the operator. On boot up, select your system Strand, Avo, Hog, etc etc. A receiving house could have a system that could have the house patch and common elements available in all common formats - the only real downside being licencing/copyright and the requirement for acetate fader/knob lay-ons to clearly label the panels.

[tvi675]

Hi Zak

 

I'd love to give MagicQ a try, but on both of my laptops it fails to start and does not produce an error message.

 

What operating system and version are you using (ie. Windows, Linux or Mac, and the version number). We haven't had any reports of this problem so would like to try and figure it out!

 

Please do PM me or my email is matt@chamsys.co.uk

 

Regards,

 

Matt Lemon

ChamSys Ltd

[peternewman]

All the software people would have to do is extend their interface to cover usb generic panels.

I doubt they'll do that, as I assume they make loads of profit from their bespoke panels, if they don't I can't work out how Behringer charge what they do.

 

The things are readily available, but I've not seen anybody use them.

I've been using the Behringer BCF2000 for a while now, for both lighting and a video server. It's great for lighting as it's got faders for the subs and some buttons above for go, flash, etc. It's also got endless rotary encoders which are perfect for programming movers. I've also used one with Resolume for aston and graphics playback and control for student TV. As long as the desk/software accepts MIDI it's simply a case of creating a midi map for MIDI-OX to make the output of the BCF fit to the input format the desk wants, this also means you can change jobs without reprogramming the BCF. The BCF even supports multiple "pages" and has motorised faders for recall (also lots of fun for shooting maltesers with :D) so you could probably set it up and use it for lighting, video and sound control on a small show. I must admit the only thing I've not used it for yet is sound, I had a very brief play and couldn't get it to work with Adobe Audition and gave up because I didn't need it to, but I'm sure it works fine if you spend a bit of time with it.