PC based control or lighing desk control, which?

[mac.calder]

Ok, Avo and ETC don't do a PC version

 

Avolites do the Diamond on PC (Diamond 4 Desktop IIRC)

[indyld]

If your school have 5 theatres then I'm guessing you also do BTECs? If so - it's worth bearing in mind that the skills taught are designed to prepare learners for work in the real world, using real world techniques, and real world equipment.

 

I suppose ChamSys would argue that they are real world equipment. Anyway, the MagicQ interface is the nearest thing you could get to learning a HogII without having to have one.

 

Things move on in the industry. I think it is a shame that nobody learns how to plot a show properly on a 3 group, 3 preset desk (does anyone have a strand AMC anymore?) but....

 

Surely using a PC style interface for lighting control is going to be the future, even if the hardware is not running Windows or Linux. After all, Avolites desks are a cornerstone of the industry and I love 'em but the UI is pretty whacky if you look at it from a learners viewpoint. Being a bit old school, I have resisted getting into the whole Jands Vista and timeline style programming but that is my own loss.

 

Maybe we should all wait for Adobe LightControl .

[cheryllucy]

You're preaching to the converted but the teaching staff don't understand real world

(we have 3 spaces and are just going to btec from gcse.)

[paulears]

I've downloaded the software mentioned. It seems fine. It does lots of nice things. I can see plenty of people using it.

 

[Teacher mode engaged]

There is no way I would want to use this with either school kids, or college students. Oddly, the reason is that it's too similar to more complex systems. Let me explain.

 

Once the initial setup is complete, the software loads quite quickly and functions pretty well straight away.

 

The first snag is that to control more than one channel at a time, the faders have to be grouped. Let's assume a simple one or two preset basic fader and master. Old strand, Zero 88 - that kind of thing. All lights are out. a full up is required. Operator is the typical boy/girl who isn't performing. I realise there are some amazingly competent "heads of lighting" out there - but experience tells me that this isn't remotely common. It is a basic level task to shove a few faders and see lights come up. To use a mouse is a higher level skill, and a repetitive one. Obviously what most experienced users would do would be to record a full up state, and use a single fader - but that again needs higher level skills to do in the first place. I realise many schools have teachers and/or technicians who could programme all this in, but it needs a different level of understanding to implement. PC based systems are not simple systems. They can do quite complex things as well as simple ones, but are not replacements for basic hardware controls.

 

I have personally had students who had difficulty with a 6 ch + master panel. Failing to see why shoving number 1 to full doesn't work if the M fader is down. This kind of control is about as simple as it can get. What is needed is simplicity, reliability and a mechanical toughness - that these software systems don't have. I'm not talking about PC issues. A plastic box, hanging on a USB cable, or a slightly bigger one are electronically competent, but mechanically vulnerable.

 

A simple(ish) control like a Juggler costs a school around £250-275. Hardy a major sum of money. Instant access to lights, no conflict between hardware/software and pc platform - by this I mean that if one day the lights don't come on, you phone the dealer and they sort it. A combo system probably needs the ICT people to check the PC and decide if it is hardware or software issues. They then have to sort the correct solution. If a dispute arises between the platform, the lighting software, and the hardware it is much more difficult to sort, unless duplicates are available for substitution.

 

I'm sure this product is very comfortable in the hands of 'real' lighting people, as many have testified here - my concern is how it performs in the hands of newly qualified teachers and non-technically minded students. It just seems a very complicated way of doing very basic things (from their perspective, not mine) I'm imagining fades stopping half way through because pressure on the mouse button was relaxed a little, or a fade up being late because the pointer was just outside the fader 'rectangle'. Manual crossfading between two lights is a bit complicated unless planned in advance and stored.

 

So I remain suspicious of these kind of things in schools and colleges - UNLESS the people using it have more than the typical level of skill. Remember that lighting sound and stage activities are sadly often the jobs the less able kids get given. You can't act, or sing, or dance........ ok, you can do lights!

[/teacher mode]

[dbuckley]

Whereas I dont disagree with the general thrust of your post, what you've missed is that the "higher level skill" of working a mouse is a core skill that students have these days.

 

In your example, the grouping of channels on a Windows based lighting controller is something every student who did introductory computer usage knows how to do, as they get taught (and pass assesments) that to select multiple things they control-click on each of the items, and to select a range they shift-click the first and last. They do it in Excel and PowerPoint, but for some reason it doesn't work in Light.

 

Why should that be? Oh yes, thats right - because some PC lighting programs have interface conventions that dont work like Word and Excel, so it is no wonder that the Windows user that hasn't had console experience finds it non-intuitive; it simply feels "wrong".