Aurora Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > Aurora Sequencer Software > Aurora 2.0 > Aurora 2 Beta 1 (1.999.300 / 1.999.307)
  Active Topics Active Topics
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Calendar   Register Register  Login Login

Pixel Tree, is it possible& practical with Aurora

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
Message
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Buckeyelights View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 04 Feb 2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 124
  Quote Buckeyelights Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Pixel Tree, is it possible& practical with Aurora
    Posted: 12 Dec 2013 at 2:12pm
I’m captivated by watching videos of pixel trees and wishing, hoping, wondering if a non-techie guy can use Aurora 2 Beta to add a pixel tree to our display?

Assuming it is possible; does Aurora 2 Beta have the capabilities to import the Nutcracker effects that Sean has made available? Sequencing 200+ channels has me close to my limit. Adding 1000’s of channels with pixels is out of the realm of my available time and mental health capabilities.

Can I convert my current Aurora 1.90 sequences (running in non-DMX mode), use my existing LOR & D-light hardware, and simply add a pixel tree to the sequence? I’m guessing that isn’t going to be possible, please tell me my guess is wrong. Then please point me in the right direction to begin to understand how pixels and Aurora 2 Beta can play together nicely.

Thank you for the continued development of Aurora
Back to Top
LightsOnLogan View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group


Joined: 11 Oct 2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3187
  Quote LightsOnLogan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Dec 2013 at 10:33am
We have a design for a new editing paradigm which will facilitate much easier editing of sequences which span into tens of thousands of channels across dozens of universes.  Unfortunately, due to time constraints (Aurora 1 just turned 5 years old and needs replacement today), the new edit paradigm will not be included in Aurora 2.  Aurora 2 will easily be capable of controlling all of those pixels (the new render engine is implemented), but the editor will still be the "classic" approach with some enhancements.

Exactly when we will develop and include the better editor for thousands of pixels depends on the success of Aurora 2.

I'm sorry that I didn't have the answer you were hoping for regarding extensive use of pixels.

Regarding your other questions, yes you can convert your 1.0.90 sequences (non-DMX) to the 2.0 beta and continue to use your D-Light hardware.  You will be prompted for mapping the non-DMX channels into a DMX channel number.  Your D-Light hardware will require a new chip to support the DMX protocol.  At the moment that is a technical process involving a PIC programmer (several forum members here can help if you need), but we do plan (closer to release) to offer a PIC swap service to make this easier for those who do not wish to get directly involved with the PIC programming themselves.

Michael
Back to Top
Buckeyelights View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 04 Feb 2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 124
  Quote Buckeyelights Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Dec 2013 at 3:27pm
Michael,

Thanks for the reply. Although it is not what I was hoping, I'm still a very happy Aurora user.

One follow-up question or clarification requested. You mentioned that the D-Light hardware will require a new chip. Will that be required in the LOR controllers too? If so, will that PIC swap service be available for LOR controllers too?

Tks!
Joe
Back to Top
LightsOnLogan View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group


Joined: 11 Oct 2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3187
  Quote LightsOnLogan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Dec 2013 at 2:52pm
We have not tested it with Aurora yet, but it is my understanding that LOR controllers with firmware 4.20 and above will function on a DMX universe (so no rechipping is required for your LOR controllers).

Michael
Back to Top
Buckeyelights View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 04 Feb 2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 124
  Quote Buckeyelights Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Dec 2013 at 2:28pm
Ok, so maybe a Pixel tree is too ambitious and costly for me anyhow. It would probably be smarter for me to gradually step into the RGB world with a much simpler element in our display.

Is Aurora 2 Beta 1 capable of controlling a small amount of pixels, such as a couple RGB coro canes like this offered by Holiday Coro:

http://www.holidaycoro.com/RGB-Coro-Cane-Cane-for-Pixels-p/260.htm

Tks!!!
Back to Top
Buckeyelights View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 04 Feb 2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 124
  Quote Buckeyelights Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Dec 2013 at 7:27am
Just wondering if my post/question was overlooked?

Tks!
Back to Top
BigDPS View Drop Down
Beta Testers
Beta Testers
Avatar

Joined: 13 Dec 2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 471
  Quote BigDPS Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Dec 2013 at 11:32am
I'm not the expert when it comes to pixels but the way I understand them, they have their own controllers to run them. I don't think Aurora can "control" the controllers.

What Aurora can do however is if you have a RGB floodlight, you can make it shine 16 million colors if you want.  I have made my own and I have them pointing on trees and it gives a eerie glow when they flash all the different colors. It sometimes appear as if the tree was moving.


Back to Top
Buckeyelights View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 04 Feb 2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 124
  Quote Buckeyelights Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31 Dec 2013 at 8:39am
Thanks BigDPS. I suspected that due to the lack of response to my post. What I don't understand is if Aurora can control an RGB floodlight, basically a collection of LED's in a housing; why can't Aurora control a collection of LED's in a candy cane?

I'm a very happy Aurora user. One more night with the display up and aside from one lone random shutdown of the scheduler, Aurora has run great.

However, I'm concerned about the success of Aurora 2 and therefore the future of Aurora if it's still behind the technology of other software options that have the ability to control pixels. Why will a new user opt for Aurora 2 if other software programs provide more options?   
Back to Top
Jonathan View Drop Down
Beta Testers
Beta Testers


Joined: 07 Sep 2008
Location: SoCal
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1237
  Quote Jonathan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31 Dec 2013 at 11:46am
Aurora 2 has been designed as an entry level software for hobbyists that are new to DMX.  Aurora makes the conversion process from the D-Light / FTDI protocol to DMX as easy as it can be. 
 
While there are other software packages out there, many of them are confusing to the novice (and sometimes advanced!) users and most software available today really isn't all that intuitive to use.  Not so with Aurora.  The whole point of Aurora 2 is that it is simple and easy to use, just like its predecessor.  More importantly, an existing Aurora 1.X user doesn't have to start over as all Aurora 1.X sequences are easily transmogrified to run in the new format.  The hard part with converting to DMX is now the programming and swapping of the chips in the controllers (and even that is fairly easy nowadays). 
 
What you are seeing with Aurora 2 is just the beginning.  Think of it as a base platform for which other add-ins can be developed and incorporated.  It is true that unforeseen development delays (most of which were caused by FTDI support issues from Aurora 1.X's reliance on the .NET framework) did cause a number of users to look for other software options.  If those users are happy with their current software program then we are happy with that as well.  Remember, Aurora is designed by hobbyists for hobbyists.  While Michael needs to generate enough revenue to offset the time and expense it takes to develop new technology, Aurora isn't some large company solely focused on profits (like some of the other lighting sofrware companies out there).  That means Michael programs when he has free time and the beta testers (who cannot speak about specific directions the program may or may not be going) all volunteer our time to test the program.  The result is slower development than we'd like to see but that is the reality of it.
 
It's too early in the game to tell whether Aurora 2 will be the next chapter in something great or the last sizzle of a program whose time has come and gone.  I can tell you that there is still a tremendous amount happening behind the scenes, which is why inquiries aren't always answered on the day they are written.
 
To answer your specific question, Aurora 2 can control any DMX unit with a channel, be it a standard or RGB channel.  While I have not tested the specific "coro-canes" you reference, the TinyPix controller that runs them states the following features: "Support for up to a FULL 170 pixels (510 DMX channels) on a single string" and "Works with any standard RS485 DMX signal".  If this is the case, then yes, this device would work with Aurora 2 so long as as it could be connected to a universe via an ethernet jack.

EDIT:  Apologies for the incorrect information.  I'd also like too make it clear that as I am not the programmer of Aurora, I can only go by the public bits of information I pick up here and there, some of which, as Michael points out, is not entirely accurate.  What I do know is that Aurora is an awesome program right now even without all the bells and whistles that future versions will be capable of.


Edited by Jonathan - 31 Dec 2013 at 8:57pm
~Jonathan
Back to Top
LightsOnLogan View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group


Joined: 11 Oct 2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3187
  Quote LightsOnLogan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31 Dec 2013 at 4:48pm
The above information is not entirely accurate.  Aurora 2 was not at all designed as an entry level software.  At the moment due to time restrictions only the entry level editor features are present, but the Aurora 2 back end (render engine) is designed for far more advanced usage (slice mapping, pattern overlays, etc.).  Getting those things into the front end is a matter of available time, not of capability. 

Unfortunately, we are at least two years out at the current development pace from fully implementing and testing those features, so rather than have customers who want a properly functioning DMX today wait until we get the advanced stuff complete, we've decided to release the less capable version now as version 2 and postpone the more advanced features for a future version 3.  That said, the program is certainly accessible to entry level users, but as a whole it is far from being an entry level design.  There is also the matter of continued funding to support development, so it is our hope that version 2 provides the necessary funding to continue into version 3 (and maybe some extra to advance some of those features into version 2).

Also, 1.x did not rely on .NET in any way.  FTDI drivers were an issue though, and an 11th hour (as in mid-November) protocol change done by a hardware vendor made us lose a lot of customers.  We've been retooling for DMX and E1.31 ever since in order to avoid that situation ever happening again.  There were also some other 3rd party dependencies which became difficult to support since Aurora 1 saw an unexpectedly long release cycle which outlived our own support channels for those dependencies.

The future direction of Aurora (what additional items will be included in version 2 and what will not) largely depends on the success/failure of the preorder discount closing later tonight.

I'm certainly never going to get rich writing this software (far from it, we've been at a loss for a few years now), but I do need something to justify the number of hours spent away from family.  Without that I do have to take other consulting work to pay the bills, and that is the biggest reason development has slowed in the last couple years.

Michael


Edited by LightsOnLogan - 31 Dec 2013 at 4:55pm
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.06
Copyright ©2001-2007 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 1.328 seconds.