Consumer PCs for Lighting Control

[Andrew C]

Computers with high reliability are seen daily -- banks, net servers etc. cannot afford to fail. However they tend to get setup to do one job and not changed much. I'd argue that its possible to do the same for lighting, thats why I'd considered a "live distribution cd" for show control -- just boot off the cd and pull any files from a usb pen drive.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And how often do you speak to someone in one of these so-called secure institutions only to be told "I can't do that, the system is down"? :)

 

But I do like the CD idea!

[jfitzpat]

To add a bit of a tangent in here, one of the things that would worry me about using a domestic PC (and I know that some of the kit comes with dedicated control surfaces) would be the ergonomics.  I would hate to be hunting around for the "GO" button with a mouse while trying to watch the show, or pressing "A" or whatever to make q stack A run.

 

Give me a dedicated keyboard every time!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Actually, I agree with this. If you are setting up a preprogrammed show or exhibit, fine, plug us in the laptop and go. If you want to run a show live, plug a simple DMX console in and give yourself real bump buttons and faders...

 

A dedicated tactile surface would have opened up some nice features, but I also really liked the scalability and flexibility of taking generic DMX-512 in. Given my ancient Hybrid Arts background, MIDI might have seemed like a possible choice for tactile input. But, in fact, it is my MIDI background with Hybrid Arts that steered me to DMX... :)

 

Seriously, we do have a sample for our Automation API that does MIDI input mapping and triggering, but I just don't like the reliability chain all the boxes and adapters make. This is the same reason the SMPTE generation and reading is built in. You need time code, plug in and go. You need tactile input, plug in DMX and go. No third party boxes and drivers to futz with and depend on.

 

This sort of relates to a point Russ made above. Sure, you can get all those chains of boxes to work, but you have to ring it out and, heaven forbid you swap anything out...

 

-jjf

[tuxlux]

Computers with high reliability are seen daily -- banks, net servers etc. cannot afford to fail. However they tend to get setup to do one job and not changed much. I'd argue that its possible to do the same for lighting, thats why I'd considered a "live distribution cd" for show control -- just boot off the cd and pull any files from a usb pen drive.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And how often do you speak to someone in one of these so-called secure institutions only to be told "I can't do that, the system is down"? :)

Is a very good point. ;) Though I was rather meaning that there are some servers which have an uptime of days -- possibly because they're not fiddled with. Then again how many times is the excuse "thingy's being upgraded".

 

  To add a bit of a tangent in here, one of the things that would worry me about using a domestic PC (and I know that some of the kit comes with dedicated control surfaces) would be the ergonomics. I would hate to be hunting around for the "GO" button with a mouse while trying to watch the show, or pressing "A" or whatever to make q stack A run.

 

Give me a dedicated keyboard every time!

 

I fully agree, which is why I'd started designing a usb hardware wing to go with a PC controller. It struck me though how similar sound and LX could be -- range of separate channels with a line of rotary encoders (sound=eq/pan aux's etc. lx=attributes) then a fader, with a master/submaster at the side -- and whether one could be used for both.

Also wondered how many faders you needed, since would it be possible to page or scroll channels across the desk? (Navigator being an example of a desk which did this which springs to mind)

 

Though I'd have thought it better if it worked in 3 banks of 6 ?

 

Course being really off-the-wall could have a gesture/hand tracking based desk. Could be interesting... ;)

[tadawson]

Computers with high reliability are seen daily -- banks, net servers etc. cannot afford to fail.

 

True. And not a one of them sits on an users desk! All the critical data in these situations sits on a server in a secure, environmentally controlled, power stabilized computer room somewhere. The desktop is only an access tool, and is expendable in its availabilty. These backend systems are typically mainframes or Unix systems, and frequently are clustered if availability is really that critical. The typical PC is just not suitable for much of any truly critical environment . . . . especially not with WinBlows . . . . .

 

Personally, it if runs any variant of Windows, I won't put it on a show - period. Just way too flakey for my standards . . .

 

- Tim

[jfitzpat]

Personally, it if runs any variant of Windows, I won't put it on a show - period.  Just way too flakey for my standards . . .

 

As Russ pointed out, quite a few big name consoles are already using Windows internally. Still more as using other personal computing OS's. As I said, I think that the trend will continue.

 

Don't worry though, if the whole world goes Windows, I can sell you some Ward Leonard Autotransformer Dimmers from my garage. I'll even throw in some commutators and Schwinn bicycle chain (the only parts I ever needed to replace)... ;)

 

Seriously, are you really saying you wouldn't run a show on a Vista or Maxxyz? I've heard some pretty terrible first hand experiences with a Hog III (though plenty of web servers run Linux... :) ), but I hadn't heard about significant reliability problems with the others.

 

-jjf

[lonfire]

hi,

I think people that have infered that Windows systems aren't capable of running big corporations or big software systems are really living in the dark ages.. there are plenty of highly reliable 24/7 systems out there that run Windows quite happily.. there are plenty of unix boxes out there that are doing a perfectly good job and will be for years to come.. but there are also plenty of windows boxes out there doing an equaly good job.. you tend to find that unix systems work off one BIG server (or perhaps a blade style server) which are expensive, but are highly reliable.. windows systems (well designed windows systems) tend to have a number of smaller servers that are significantly cheaper which all work in a distributed fasion.. You can easily get 100% uptime of a system running on windows boxes.. the individual boxes may be taken up and down for maintenance/repiar but the software system as a whole will keep running.. which is no different to you pulling a blade out a unix blade server for repair/replacement..

 

and for those who don't think you can get unix size windows servers just look at the unisys windows servers.. anybody for a 32way 64bit windows box? ;-)

 

As for running lighting/sound software on a PC.. well.. I personaly think that if you are running it on a well maintained system where you haven't been surfing dodgy sites on the net and getting spy ware off them.. or you haven't installed a hacked copy of doom3 on it, I think you'll be just fine.. get a reliable hardware platform (not some overclocked experimental homebuild system.. like mine ;-)) install a clean version of windows on it, install whatever software you choose to use... and leave it at that..

 

you can get a decent cheap PC for around 400 quid now days.. its a shame the software providers don't provide a way to connect two systems together so if one goes down the other will take over.. wouldn't be too difficult todo (even if you just had your show loaded on the other system ready to go)..

 

anyway.. just a few thoughts..

 

rgds

chris

[jfitzpat]

you can get a decent cheap PC for around 400 quid now days.. its a shame the software providers don't provide a way to connect two systems together so if one goes down the other will take over.. wouldn't be too difficult todo (even if you just had your show loaded on the other system ready to go)..

 

anyway.. just a few thoughts..

 

Now that you mention it, I don't see why a user couldn't do this now, at least on our system. Rather running internal clock, external timecode, DMX input, or some other triggering source like MIDI, the backup system could pretty much always be kept in perfect sync.

 

Then, if there is a problem, use an A/B switch on the DMX outputs themselves. I suppose someone could even do a watchdog timer app to make the AB switch automatic.

 

I did all the syncing options, like outputing SMPTE whenever running in internal mode, etc. because I thought they might be useful in other ways. Since reliability has not been a problem, I did not think about using them for complete redundancy.

 

Thanks for the suggestion. I'll put hunting down or building an A/B switch on the wish list, along with a possible watchdog app.

 

-jjf

[Russ]

Now that you mention it, I don't see why a user couldn't do this now, at least on our system.  Rather running internal clock, external timecode, DMX input, or some other triggering source like MIDI, the backup system could pretty much always be kept in perfect sync.

 

Then, if there is a problem, use an A/B switch on the DMX outputs themselves.  I suppose someone could even do a watchdog timer app to make the AB switch automatic.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Some bigger consoles do this (ETC Obsession springs to mind). For the best redundancy, you could just use a DMX merge - some DMX mergers have an "input x takes precedence" mode.

 

I'm intrugued to know what your system is ;).

[mac.calder]

hi,

I think people that have infered that Windows systems aren't capable of running big corporations or big software systems are really living in the dark ages..  there are plenty of highly reliable 24/7 systems out there that run Windows quite happily..  there are plenty of unix boxes out there that are doing a perfectly good job and will be for years to come.. but there are also plenty of windows boxes out there doing an equaly good job..  you tend to find that unix systems work off one BIG server (or perhaps a blade style server) which are expensive, but are highly reliable..  windows systems (well designed windows systems) tend to have a number of smaller servers that are significantly cheaper which all work in a distributed fasion..  You can easily get 100% uptime of a system running on windows boxes.. the individual boxes may be taken up and down for maintenance/repiar but the software system as a whole will keep running..  which is no different to you pulling a blade out a unix blade server for repair/replacement..

 

and for those who don't think you can get unix size windows servers just look at the unisys windows servers.. anybody for a 32way 64bit windows box? ;-)

 

As for running lighting/sound software on a PC.. well.. I personaly think that if you are running it on a well maintained system where you haven't been surfing dodgy sites on the net and getting spy ware off them.. or you haven't installed a hacked copy of doom3 on it, I think you'll be just fine..  get a reliable hardware platform (not some overclocked experimental homebuild system.. like mine ;-)) install a clean version of windows on it, install whatever software you choose to use... and leave it at that..

 

you can get a decent cheap PC for around 400 quid now days.. its a shame the software providers don't provide a way to connect two systems together so if one goes down the other will take over.. wouldn't be too difficult todo (even if you just had your show loaded on the other system ready to go)..

 

anyway.. just a few thoughts..

 

rgds

chris

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Um which plannet have you been living on, the requirements of servers are pretty much the same between doze and unix, but unix has an advantage - The wonderfull world of distributed and clustered computing has been available on unix systems for yonks - bewulf clusters. Windows systems usually crack it if they are asked to share the load in a clustered environment. Some of the most powerful supercomputers in the world are built using ordinary PC's and unix. As for distributing the load, the typical way with doze boxes is to have a dedicated mail server, and a dedicated wb server etc. You can do that with Unix too, just install what you need on each box...

 

Unix uptimes for a single machine often run into the years, windows memory management often requires a reboot every few months. I can fully update my linux box (with exclusion of the kernel) without taking my box down, which was extrodinarily hard before w2k and 2k3 server. If I upgrade the kernel, the box will only go down for the 30 secs it takes to reboot. It is very rare that a machine needs to be taken down completely if the admin knows what they are doing - I can reconfigure my mail server and have no downtime while it happens. Admitedly much of it can be done with no downtime now in windows, but remember when every program installed in doze required a reboot?

 

As for the software provider statement at the end of your post, I take it you mean fallback systems, um... they have been arround for yonks.

 

I think you are thinking of the unix servers of old.

[martinw]

Personally, it if runs any variant of Windows, I won't put it on a show - period. Just way too flakey for my standards . . .

 

Tim

 

Does this comment apply just to Windows based lighting packages that run user-installed on a stand-alone PC, or to full lighting consoles that use Windows XP embedded as a platform like Avo D4 or ETC/AVAB Congo?

 

Martin

[Doug kelly]

Another desk that runs embedded windows is the Maxyz.

 

Other systems that can be run on PC's using windows are Pixeldrive and Radlite both run very well under windows providing you take care with what is installed on that PC ie cracked copy of Doom.

 

Windows does have it faults but so do most things.

 

Doug

[BlueShift]

Im probably gonna rattle a few cages here, but I think that people who say that windows/osx boxes arent reliable just dont know enough about the equipment that they are working with.

 

I have built many many PCs to do a variety of different jobs. Anything from live audio recording to studio work to video and media serving to backup to file and print sharing to internet control and routing, you name it. Each of these PCs has had almost 0 hardware or software issues because I took the time to get decent hardware and most importantly setup windows properly from the word go.

 

My home PC for example, runs windows XP and does the usual day to day office and internet work, plus audio editing and mixing, graphic design, video serving and editing and often gets cated from place to place to do various onsite jobs and it has crashed exactly 1 time when I was tinkering with it while on and managed to dislodge an IDE cable (that is guaranteed to bring windows to its knees! ;) ).

 

So in short, if you know your stuff, you can build a show control/media server PC that will work without fail. to simply give it a shot, fail, and call it unreliable is a bit of a cop out really. if I'd resorted to that the first few times I tried programming mac500's on a pearl, Avo would have a lot of unreliable desks on their hands! :P

 

No doubt a custom built machine is gonna be less susceptable to such problems, but there is no reason you cant configure a PC to have similar resiliance

[bruce]

you tend to find that unix systems work off one BIG server (or perhaps a blade style server) which are expensive, but are highly reliable..  windows systems (well designed windows systems) tend to have a number of smaller servers that are significantly cheaper which all work in a distributed fasion.. 

 

That stereotype might have been true once, but today either software platform can utilise either of the hardware models you describe.

 

At work, I have two racks, each of which contains a pile of identical servers. One rack contains clustered Windows services. One hosts Unix services. But the hardware in each is identical.

 

Each system (as opposed to any individual server) has an uptime of several years...

 

 

The problem here (and I should say that I am no great Windows fan!) is that peoples views of how Windows will perform is heavily coloured by their desktop experiences. The only experience that the vast majority of people have of windows is of a default install on a desktop, with loads of 3rd party applications, pirate software, spyware etc, on a system which they have no qualms about letting their kids play with....

 

This is a million miles away from a "professional" windows installation, which will have no spyware, no unnecessary software, a decent storage subsystem, and most importantly proper change control and professional systems management.

 

Bruce.

[Tomo]

My home PC for example, runs windows XP and does the usual day to day office and internet work, plus audio editing and mixing, graphic design, video serving and editing and often gets cated from place to place to do various onsite jobs and it has crashed exactly 1 time when I was tinkering with it while on and managed to dislodge an IDE cable (that is guaranteed to bring windows to its knees! ;) ).

You've been fairly lucky.

WinXP is much more robust than 9x or 2K, but it still has a few issues.

Most of these are due to poor memory management - I might ask how often you reboot your machine, and if it's ever become 'slow' after running for a long time.

I find that my XP box will run for roughly two weeks before issues start to crop up, and if I have a particularly heavy crash (of 3DS MAX during a nasty mesh operation for example) then the machine immediately becomes slow and unstable.

 

So in short, if you know your stuff, you can build a show control/media server PC that will work without fail. to simply give it a shot, fail, and call it unreliable is a bit of a cop out really. if I'd resorted to that the first few times I tried programming mac500's on a pearl, Avo would have a lot of unreliable desks on their hands! :P

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm not convinced.

If it has to be turned off regularly to remain reliable (like all Windows so far), I don't trust it, because there are clearly serious issues that could turn up at any moment.

 

There is another important point there - "If you know your stuff".

When a PC simulation alternative is suggested, it's almost always as a cheaper alternative to the 'real thing'. Because of this, it is very rare that someone does the proper homework to find exactly the hardware that will be the most stable running that stuff, because research is expensive.

 

For a real example:

In the control room at my previous venue, there was an ETC Obsession II and a HogPC.

The Obsession had been running 24/7 since it was first installed, and had just started to show problems with the submaster faders (hardware fault).

The HogPC needed handholding almost every day.

 

Neither machine had ever been used for doing anything other than lighting control.

 

[snip]

This is a million miles away from a "professional" windows installation, which will have no spyware, no unnecessary software, a decent storage subsystem, and most importantly proper change control and professional systems management.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Even in that case, a PC is not sufficiently reliable.

The HogPC install I mentioned was standalone, with ONE piece of software installed - HogPC (however it was running on Win 2K rather than XP, which will have made it worse).

Zero spyware and impossible to get virii because it did not have a network connection and never saw a non-blank disk (except the backups made by itself).

 

Your suggestion of change control and professional systems management is actually ludicrous in this context. For the servers and networked PC of a large enterprise, it is required.

 

However, given that we are talking about a standalone machine, for the expense of doing that you could afford to buy the 'real thing' and have it pay back in a couple of years. That kind of expertise isn't cheap.

[bruce]

The HogPC install I mentioned was standalone, with ONE piece of software installed - HogPC (however it was running on Win 2K rather than XP, which will have made it worse).

Zero spyware and impossible to get virii because it did not have a network connection and never saw a non-blank disk (except the backups made by itself).

 

Your suggestion of change control and professional systems management is actually ludicrous in this context.  For the servers and networked PC of a large enterprise, it is required.

 

Yes, Win2K will certainly not have improved things ;)

 

I accept that it may never have had a non-blank disk - but can you realy be sure? (playing devil's avocado...)

 

But I don't find the suggestion of change control ludicrous at all. In the IT world, on any system that is of any importance, changes, patches etc are tightly controlled and documented. Before anything is changed in the "live" environment, you test it in your development setup, and document it. And that's not just on bank mainframes - it's on anything that holds data of any commercial or operational value. I would recommend applying the same principles - although perhaps not to the same level of detail - to any system which you regard as important.

 

And as for professional systems management..... The professional IT world has a big problem. That problem is that virtually every house in the country has a computer of some sort. The majority of their owners have installed some software, or installed an OS, or maybe got rid of a virus, or something similar. They can take a PC out of a box at home and get it into a useable state. They might even have built a PC from components. They might possibly be regarded by their mates as a "computer expert". They might even be very good at it!

 

And this experience means that "everyone thinks they are a PC expert". They don't realise that there is a world of difference between building and running a few home PCs, and managing a corporate IT environment. The technology is generally the same (but on a different scale), but the procedures and mindset are completely different...

 

Sorry, I've gone off on a rant again :P

 

Bruce.