What I have found is that sequencing is very different to other S/W packages, and in my opinion, it's much faster with the start and end markers that help you to break up sequences in logical "blocks and then add the "effect" between the markers.

 

One sequence I composed on another application, which took me about 35-40 hours. With Aurora, I can do a similar sequence in 5-6 hours, really becuase of the "markers" help me to sequence more accurately and fasters.

 

The scheduler is working fine each night for the last 3 nights with no real major bugs to report (bugs only really pop-up if I do something stupid).

 

Imported sequences are generally much larger in file size (600k to 700k Bytes) because Aurora has to assign "timing" points to them. Whereas native Aurora sequences are much "cleaner" because the user defines the timing points themselves and hence the files are 100-200K Bytes, also becuase they are smaller they start up quicker in the Scheduler and also save more quickly.

 

LightsOnLogan, Any word on the next beta??

 

Carey

 

Thank you again

 

Lee

 

Lee

I have had some issues with short event times and one channel sticking on but it may be a board thing.

 

It would be nice if you could:

 

Mark/tap a time spot while you are playing. 

 

Set the space bar so you can start/stop the player during loop and then place an event with the mouse.   Its kind of clunky right now

 

Need an easier way to lay down timing events thru the entire song.  Unless I'm wrong the only way to do it right now is to start copying and pasting. Maybe a tool that will set say a .1 or selectable time for the entire song.

 

All said  I'm quite happy with my purchase.

 

It's sad that D-light seems to have taken a path with the engine that they are using for programming.  The further they get with the end product in terms of it doing what it needs to the more resouce hungry it gets.  I think they need to re-think things from the ground up.

I am not going to buy a dual core,  memory fat machine just to do some christmas lights sequencing.  Mine is no slouch but just the same -----Dlight is now over the edge.

 

Thanks much   keep up the good work

 

Chuck

 

The scheduler is very simple to use, however, it does show a slight lag when it loads complex sequences. But the caveat here is that the lag is due to complex sequences that have been imported from Spectrum.

When you write them in Aurora, it's not a problem.

 

Here's a datapoint:

 

48 channel imported from Spectrum (76,672 events, 2141 snap points)

 

48 channels written in Aurora (2,993 events, 289 snap points)

 

48 Channels written in Aurora (7,596 events 439 snap points)

 

The problem I believe is that Spectrum is CELL based meaning that for a 3 min song at 0.1 secs per cell, will have  86,400 cells to keep track of, versus the two examples from Aurora above. Hence the file sizes in Spectrum are significantly bigger (I've seen 2 - 4 times larger in Spectrum). So when it is also coupled with Spectrum  .NET architecture, you are in a whole load of pain performance wise. And it will get worse as folks increase the numbers of channels.

Whereas Auroras simpler, cleaner design and low overhead, I can run 48 channels back on a single core P4 at 2Gig and only 700M Ram.

 

I will say again, I'm very, very pleased with Aurora.

 

Way to go Aurora Team!!!!

 

There is quite a paradigm shift from other programs to Aurora.  While it is possible to lay down a fixed .1 set of events, doing so greatly limits the flexibility that Aurora provides.  I'll leave it as an excercise to the reader to figure out how to create a .1 grid in Aurora (hint: it involves the selection tool and a mouse right click).  Once you've tried the new way though, I doubt you'll want to go back to the fixed grid way. 

 

Basically, the quickest way to sequence in Aurora is to use the waveform and the grid to "rough in" your events with the event place tool.  After you have them roughed in, place some events and then test them in the visualizer.  You can then go back to the grid to drag the event line to a new position and test again (all attached events move with it).  Sometimes it is helpful to highlight and play a small section of the waveform to better hear what you see.  Before long (with some practice) you'll be dropping them very close to where they belong with very little adjustment necessary.  Had a fixed .1 grid been there, you'd have to redraw all of your events instead of just moving the already placed event line.

 

Here's the great part... you've only seen 1/3 of the planned functionality.  Alternate views to the classic "waveform view" are coming.  In order to maintain the surprise I can't say much more, but rest assured it will be very, very powerful.

 

Can't wait to see the new features, it's got me drooling