Print Page | Close Window

2010 Aurora Status / DMX beta

Printed From: Aurora
Category: Aurora Sequencer Software
Forum Name: Aurora 1.0
Forum Discription: This is the place to discuss (and report bugs) the 1.0 version of Aurora
URL: http://www.aurorashow.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1044
Printed Date: 28 Mar 2024 at 12:43pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.06 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: 2010 Aurora Status / DMX beta
Posted By: LightsOnLogan
Subject: 2010 Aurora Status / DMX beta
Date Posted: 30 Aug 2010 at 11:10am
Ok...

Everyone has been waiting for the August 30 announcement.  Is it good or is it bad?

The original business plan for Aurora required a growing market and a 2 year version life cycle.  In other words, version 1 would release in Sep. 2008, version 2 in Sep. 2010, version 3 in Sep. 2012, etc.  Neither of these requirements turned out to be the case.

1. The market has been shrinking instead of growing since 2008.  In part, the growth rate of the hobby has slowed (due to economic influences).  Also, the hobby has recently been returning to its DIY roots.  Several open-source and/or freeware software projects have emerged and these have greatly impacted the Aurora sales figures.

2. Despite being the best option for properly supporting those who purchased version 1, extending the life of version 1 past its original life cycle completely removed a planned source of upgrade sales in late 2009.  The expected boost in sales from the improved reputation never surfaced, mostly due to the sequence of problems and delays with the release killing the sales that were supposed to flow from extending the life of version 1.

When it was clear that sales had hit an all-time low that was beyond unsustainable (3 sales from January 2010 to May 2010), we took the risk of temporarily switching the product to freeware.  The hope was to increase interest in Aurora and to raise the demo download figures so as to improve the situation for when development would resume in September.  We would resume normal pricing with some future update and would do so with a built in set of new customers eager to now pay for the software (DMX was the key here).  This was a risky move... and it failed.  The market took the move to be a sign that Aurora was simply dead.  By going freeware, download figures went down instead of up.  In fact, downloads of Aurora nearly ceased altogether. 

So bad has the impact been that I can not afford to put up my own light show this year.  "Lights On Logan" will be dark this Christmas.

From the May announcement through this August 30 announcement I monitored the market and its reaction to the freeware release.  I determined that resuming extended development of version 1 as a commercial product is simply unsustainable. 

The calculations for version 2 were not much better.  I was looking at a maximum of 200 sales over a 1 year initial development plus 2 year life cycle release period.  After 3 years of expenses, trade shows, etc. there was absolutely nothing left.  Not only would I not make any money on Aurora 2, I would be lucky to not lose money.

I also attempted to consider unconventional business models for Aurora (for example, an ad supported application where vendors could display ads within an ad pane in the sequencer).  Finding horizontal markets to venture into (entertainment industry) was also considered.  Unfortunately, none of these worked out either.

So... here is the deal...

1. Aurora is on hiatus for the next 6 months while I pursue an income.  I have resumed consulting work (I'm presently beginning work on a 6 month QC project).  Every 6 months I will be revisiting the figures to determine if the market is any better than it is today.  If the situation improves, then Aurora will resume as a commercial product.  Until then, Aurora remains a freeware "hobby project".  Do not expect any official updates to Aurora this season (but there is an unofficial release... more on that in a moment).

2. I fully intend to have my "Lights On Logan" light show back up in Christmas 2011, and I will not be using software other than Aurora to run it!  My 2011 plans are to be 100% DMX, so you can fully expect an official DMX Aurora in 2011.

3. There is an unofficial DMX Aurora available today!  Last season the beta testers and I ran DMX in our shows with a very early beta testing release that had DMX support.  Since a release including this functionality has not been completed in 2010, we are making the beta release available on a private basis to anyone who will be using DMX this season.  Due to its beta nature, this early beta is limited to a single DMX universe and requires a few hoops to jump through to install.  However, it does work and has been proven in the field.  Please private message myself or a beta tester if you need access to this "unofficial release".

I wish I had better news... but that is it for now.


-------------
http://www.aurorashow.com/">



Replies:
Posted By: onewish1
Date Posted: 30 Aug 2010 at 8:37pm
hope things pick up for you.... the best to you and your family


Posted By: BigDPS
Date Posted: 31 Aug 2010 at 4:49pm
Does this version have any other updates beside DMX? The cut and paste for example...

-------------
http://www.aurorashow.com/">


Posted By: LightsOnLogan
Date Posted: 01 Sep 2010 at 7:05am
The DMX beta still has the slower copy/paste in place.  The newer copy/paste is not complete yet.  The copy/paste performance update will have to wait for the 2011 release.

-------------
http://www.aurorashow.com/">


Posted By: BigDPS
Date Posted: 02 Sep 2010 at 11:48am
I thought you guys had been working on this at the same time. Ahh man.....this is killing me.Ouch

 I have to add 5 more boxes in my display and I only have 2 cars. When I do a cut and paste, I have time to do one oil change. I guess I'll be able to start myself an oil changing service!Wacko

-------------
http://www.aurorashow.com/">


Posted By: Buckeyelights
Date Posted: 02 Sep 2010 at 12:37pm
Michael,
For a couple days I've thought about your decision to put Aurora on the shelf for 6 months and I keep having one reoccurring thought - Thank YOU!.  Thank you for creating Aurora, thank you for making it easy to use, thank you for making it a stable product.  As you could tell from my basic questions, I'm not computer techie orientated.  But I was able to create a cool show last year, my first, without any real problems.  Aurora worked, works great and I'll continue to use it "as-is" and continued to be thrilled with it.
 
I hope the consultanting gig works out great for you. And hopefully, the market will return and those advancements that made Aurora the best can resume. 
 
I'm convinced that without Aurora, our display would have remained static. 
 
Thank you!!!!!
Joe


Posted By: LightsOnLogan
Date Posted: 02 Sep 2010 at 12:43pm
BigDPS,

You might want to private message deweycooter.  He has a small app that interfaces with the Aurora data DLL to do complete channel copies, sequence merges, etc.


-------------
http://www.aurorashow.com/">


Posted By: onewish1
Date Posted: 02 Sep 2010 at 3:16pm
thanks LOL... hope he doesn't mind a few PMs


Posted By: onewish1
Date Posted: 02 Sep 2010 at 3:20pm
bummer

Error Error Your Private Message "app", has not been sent!

deweycooter has exceeded the maximum number of Private Messages they are allowed to receive.

Thumbs%20Down


Posted By: deweycooter
Date Posted: 02 Sep 2010 at 4:30pm
Just email me at my gmail acct.  Yes, the address is what you think it is.  :)

-------------
http://www.deweycooter.com/wiki/index.php/Aurora - Aurora Lights Wiki
http://www.aurorashow.com/">


Posted By: onewish1
Date Posted: 02 Sep 2010 at 6:25pm
thanks will do that now


Posted By: Comporder1
Date Posted: 06 Sep 2010 at 7:43am
So what dmx adapter does the dmx version use?

-------------
http://www.williamsonworkshop.com - www.williamsonworkshop.com


Posted By: LightsOnLogan
Date Posted: 06 Sep 2010 at 11:32am
The DMX version has been tested with an ordinary low cost D-Light USB-485 v3 adapter (plus an easy to make D-Light to XLR adapter [or Lynx or whatever] cable).  Alternatively, Aurora DMX should also work with an Entec OpenDMX USB adapter (the chipset is similar and uses the same D2XX driver). 

-------------
http://www.aurorashow.com/">


Posted By: Comporder1
Date Posted: 07 Sep 2010 at 9:03am
So the Lynx adapter will not work? Only D2xx driver devices?

-------------
http://www.williamsonworkshop.com - www.williamsonworkshop.com


Posted By: MrChristmas2000
Date Posted: 24 Sep 2010 at 12:18pm
It's interesting that the d-light (USB to RS-485) adapter and the Lynx DMX dongle uses the same driver set from http://www.ftdichip.com/Drivers/VCP.htm - http://www.ftdichip.com/Drivers/VCP.htm .
 
Judging by that the LYNX DMX dongle 'should' work in the place of the d-light unit.
 
Tom
 


-------------
http://www.aurorashow.com/">

Holding breath for DMX.


Posted By: LightsOnLogan
Date Posted: 24 Sep 2010 at 1:04pm
Aurora DMX uses D2XX with the D-Light adapter and not the VCP driver (D2XX is installed with the Aurora DMX beta).  If the Lynx adapter is a software-driven dongle and uses the FTDI chipset then D2XX should connect to it just fine.  However, if it is a "smart" dongle, then it requires commands in an intermediate protocol (not pure DMX) to compensate for the COM restrictions of VCP (VCP is limited to 115,200 when DMX is 250,000). 

Aurora sends pure DMX frames via D2XX at 250,000.  If your device is based on the FTDI chipset and takes pure DMX frames then it will probably work.  If it requires an intermediate "smart" (proprietary) protocol to function then it will not.



-------------
http://www.aurorashow.com/">


Posted By: dowdybrown
Date Posted: 24 Sep 2010 at 9:30pm
The Lynx dongle is a "smart" adapter and uses the VCP driver, so it will not work.

Matt


-------------
http://gleannlochchristmas.com/ - http://gleannlochchristmas.com/


Posted By: LightsOnLogan
Date Posted: 25 Sep 2010 at 11:25am
If anyone wants to write a third party Lynx plugin then I can provide the Aurora APIs to do so.  Contact me via private message.

The preferred route right now is of course the D-Light adapter.


-------------
http://www.aurorashow.com/">


Posted By: wkawyn
Date Posted: 14 Oct 2010 at 11:26pm
Just like to know who i contact about the dmx beta software. I plan to try dmx laser this year i for my Christmas show. I'm one the few people who bought the the Aurora software last year and i like the software. Thank you and Good Luck for 2011.!!!!
                                                                                      


Posted By: Jonathan
Date Posted: 15 Oct 2010 at 1:35pm
You'll want to PM LightOnLogan.

-------------
~Jonathan


Posted By: wkawyn
Date Posted: 15 Oct 2010 at 1:44pm
 Thank You!!!!LOL


Posted By: brunnesa
Date Posted: 01 Jan 2011 at 2:48pm
Can someone give the the DMX version of Aurora?  I will be using DMX in my display next year.  Thanks.
 
Scott


Posted By: LightChristmas
Date Posted: 02 Jan 2011 at 8:23pm
DMX is likely to be ver 2.0 as we are working on ver 1.9x- but don't hold me to that. Only LOL knows for certain.


-------------
http://www.aurorashow.com/">


Posted By: brunnesa
Date Posted: 06 Jan 2011 at 5:47am
So, no one has the unofficial release that is mentioned at the beginning of this thread? I understand that there is a version of Aurora that will output one universe of DMX already. Michael says in his post that it has been used in some displays. My question is how can I get this unofficial version? I have sent Michael a PM few times already. I would like to start getting ready for next year, but if Aurora will not have DMX, I need to move to a different sequencer software.


Posted By: LightsOnLogan
Date Posted: 13 Jan 2011 at 4:41pm
Getting back into the swing of things for 2011 now... those who requested DMX beta forum access since 12/31 have been granted access.

Much planning is taking place for how the DMX is going to work in the official Aurora release.  It will not be anything like how it is presently implemented in the beta (which now exists only to fill the gap until we do it correctly).

Michael


-------------
http://www.aurorashow.com/">


Posted By: Bubba
Date Posted: 16 Jan 2011 at 8:01am

Awesome I can't wait to get me hands on it!



-------------
www.brightonbrittain.com


Posted By: bdkeen
Date Posted: 10 Feb 2011 at 11:15am
Anything new happening on this DMX front or this also wrapped into the testing that appears to be happening?
 
No rush - this is pure curiosity


Posted By: LightsOnLogan
Date Posted: 10 Feb 2011 at 11:22am
DMX will be part of 1.2 with a release expected around May.  More info will be coming soon.

Michael


-------------
http://www.aurorashow.com/">


Posted By: BigDPS
Date Posted: 24 May 2011 at 7:39pm
This being the 24th of May, where do we stand right now with the new(er) version of Aurora? I am not using DMX but would really like to see the improved cut and paste before the beginning of summer if possible. 

-------------
http://www.aurorashow.com/">


Posted By: LightChristmas
Date Posted: 24 May 2011 at 10:12pm
Michael's mother has been in and out of the hospital the past few months, so testing and dev has slowed down a bit - but has NOT stopped. It's close to being finished.

-------------
http://www.aurorashow.com/">


Posted By: BigDPS
Date Posted: 25 May 2011 at 5:48pm
Sorry to hear about Mike's mom. Family comes in first, that's for sure. Happy to know also that development hasn't stopped. Keep us guys posted. The facebook pages doesn't contain a whole lot of info.

-------------
http://www.aurorashow.com/">


Posted By: onewish1
Date Posted: 25 May 2011 at 5:59pm
Sorry to hear about mom... trying to decide what setups I am going to add on.. either yours or another.. keep us posted please to help me make my decision 


Posted By: Comporder1
Date Posted: 11 Jun 2011 at 9:21am
I need access to the dmx beta version. Can anyone get that to me?
 
Thanks
Carey


-------------
http://www.williamsonworkshop.com - www.williamsonworkshop.com


Posted By: Jonathan
Date Posted: 13 Jun 2011 at 4:15pm
Carey,

PM Michael directly, as he'll need to give you access to the beta DMX version and DMX forum.  He's preoccupied with other matters at the moment, but he is around. 


-------------
~Jonathan


Posted By: Comporder1
Date Posted: 23 Jun 2011 at 12:05pm
OK guys..... I contacted Michael on the 13th and he has not replied. I need someone to hook me up. Time is running out!
 
Carey


-------------
http://www.williamsonworkshop.com - www.williamsonworkshop.com


Posted By: Jonathan
Date Posted: 23 Jun 2011 at 11:25pm
PM sent.

-------------
~Jonathan


Posted By: LightsOnLogan
Date Posted: 29 Jun 2011 at 9:20am
You have access to the DMX forum.

-------------
http://www.aurorashow.com/">


Posted By: Buckeyelights
Date Posted: 11 Jul 2011 at 8:10am
Would someone explain to me in "newbie, non-technical, really simple, English" what this update, copied from the Facebook page means:
"‎1) We are dropping the proprietary LOR and D-Light protocols and switching to the more reliable industry standard DMX protocol. This should not be a problem since there are replacement firmwares which give these controllers DMX support.

2) DMX will be supported via the E1.31 DMX-over-IP protocol. The ECG-DR4 is a good E1.31 controller for use in this new architecture."
 
Here is my personal situation:
 
I've been very happy with Aurora 1.0.69; though some enhancements such as faster copy/paste and colored event markers would be really nice to have. 
 
I'm not currently planning to move to RGB; though maybe sometime in the future when an easy, relatively quick software is available to sequence the huge number of channels involved is available, I'd consider it.  Or maybe an single element in RGB, such as the star Chris created would be nice to have and controled via Aurora.
 
There are several "comments" about D-Light controllers and what changes will need to be made to use them with the new DMX version of Aurora.  I use LOR hardware, how will the new version of Aurora work with LOR hardware? Will I need to make changes to those controllers? Will I need new DMX controllers?
 
Just a thought, it sounded like version 1.1 was very close to being released; that included some enhancements & features; any chance that version could be released? Then a future release of E1.31 DMX (whatever that is)?
 
I appreciate the status update, just wish I understood what it means to me?
 
Thanks!
Joe


Posted By: ChrisL1976
Date Posted: 11 Jul 2011 at 8:43am
Joe

LOR hardware will run in a DMX environment without any issues. I know a couple guys currently doing it. 

As for D-light controllers.  This requires a fairly cheap upgrade to the controller. You will need to switch out one of the chips in the board. If I remember right, the chips are less than $5 each.  I do believe Aurora has offered to sell the chips already programmed for just the cost of the chip plus shipping.  The DMX firmware for the D-light controllers is pretty nice.  It allows you to set LED dimming curve so if you have different LED brands, you can get all of them to match.  The guys who worked out the firmware did a excellent job.


-------------
Chris

www.lightsonsixth.com


Posted By: MrChristmas2000
Date Posted: 11 Jul 2011 at 8:44am
LOR controllers allready support dual protocol. DMX and LOR.
If you move forward when Aurora goes to E1.31 DMX-over-IP you would have to aquire new dongle interface hardware. The interface plugs into your ethernet port vs the USB port on your computer.
 
This change really doesn't have anything to do with RGB support. DMX is just a replacement industry standard communications protcol for the Software to communicate with the controller hardware. If you don't know what the protocol means it is simply the digital languge that the hardware understands when the computer sends information out it's USB port to the LOR dongle. The LOR dongle just translates the signals to the proper type to transmit those commands over long distances to the light controllers.
 
Tom


-------------
http://www.aurorashow.com/">

Holding breath for DMX.


Posted By: ChrisL1976
Date Posted: 11 Jul 2011 at 8:51am
Tom.....I guess there is a question for Michael. 

Is Aurora going to be strictly E1.31 output or will the V3 D-light dongle work also? 


-------------
Chris

www.lightsonsixth.com


Posted By: tonyjmartin
Date Posted: 11 Jul 2011 at 5:32pm
Originally posted by ChrisL1976

Tom.....I guess there is a question for Michael. 

Is Aurora going to be strictly E1.31 output or will the V3 D-light dongle work also? 

From the Facebook page:
"To update D-Light controllers to DMX is a relatively simple process which involves switching out one socketed chip on each controller. If nobody else steps up to the plate I will be happy to program your preprogram PICs and ship them to you for only the cost of the PIC itself and shipping. You do *not* need to mess with your D-Light V2 or V3 adapters because they will no longer be used (an E1.31 adapter, such as the DR4, replaces them)."

The model mentioned is the http://www.j1sys.com/ecg-dr4/ - EthConGateway ECG-DR4 from Joshua 1 Systems.  It lists for $145 plus shipping.


-------------
Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson


Posted By: ChrisL1976
Date Posted: 11 Jul 2011 at 9:11pm
Thanks, I missed that post. If I remember right, I believe JS1 is coming out with 2 universe ECG this year though for a bit cheaper.
Keep an eye out for possible  presale pricing if you plan to go that route.  If you are ever planning on using RGB pixels.....go ahead and go the DR4 route because you will need the channels.


-------------
Chris

www.lightsonsixth.com


Posted By: tonyjmartin
Date Posted: 11 Jul 2011 at 9:40pm
Originally posted by ChrisL1976

Thanks, I missed that post. If I remember right, I believe JS1 is coming out with 2 universe ECG this year though for a bit cheaper.  Keep an eye out for possible  presale pricing if you plan to go that route.  If you are ever planning on using RGB pixels.....go ahead and go the DR4 route because you will need the channels.

In http://www.aurorashow.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1181 - this thread Michael refers to an Aurora product that WAS going to be produced by http://www.j1sys.com/ - Joshua 1 Systems :

Originally posted by LightsOnLogan

We may bring back D-Light dongle and OpenDMX USB based DMX solutions in the future, but they are not our target for development at this point in time.  All active development is focused on E1.31 right now.

We were negotiating with J1 to produce an Aurora branded E1.31 adapter with only 2 universes at a lower entry price point ($89-$99 range), but in the end we decided to focus on the software and to stay out of the hardware business.

Michael

If this is the "2 universe ECG" to which you are referring, Michael is no longer pursuing negotiations with Josua 1 Systems to offer this adapter.  So the price point remains at $145 plus shipping for the http://www.j1sys.com/ecg-dr4/ - ECG-DR4 .



-------------
Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson


Posted By: ChrisL1976
Date Posted: 11 Jul 2011 at 11:17pm
JS1 is making the 2 Univ ECG with or without Aurora. Actually it was in existence last fall, just not production.  If you see early videos of the DR4, you can see it on the table.  There is no difference between the 2 and 4 unit version besides univ output.  Both are E1.31.  Michael says it will require an E1.31 adapter ...(keywords coming)..."such as the DR4".



-------------
Chris

www.lightsonsixth.com


Posted By: Buckeyelights
Date Posted: 12 Jul 2011 at 7:56am

Thanks Chris & Tom.  Now I can look forward to the enhanced version of Aurora without major revamping of my system.

Tks!
Joe


Posted By: BigDPS
Date Posted: 12 Jul 2011 at 9:40am
Ok I'm lost here. Does this mean that if I don't use DMX, my present system will be stuck at 1.0.69 forever ? I have no immediate intention of going DMX at the moment. I just want a quick copy paste feature from Aurora.

Please enlighten me cause I'm really confused. Damn DMX. Dead



-------------
http://www.aurorashow.com/">


Posted By: LightChristmas
Date Posted: 12 Jul 2011 at 4:20pm
I'm looking at this from a more optimistic standpoint. Where else can you get a "dual" 255-Channel controller for $145? Granted, the "lights" aren't cheap, but when you are no longer constrained to a handful of colors, tons of extension cords, and having several 20A circuits to deal with; I think its well worth it.

Now, I may be waaaay off base, as I have no way at the moment to verify this; but it would appear than the DMX is on NET32 - leaving 31 "Nets" available for the D-Light serial dongle. Wouldn't both be useable simultaneously?


-------------
http://www.aurorashow.com/">


Posted By: ChrisL1976
Date Posted: 12 Jul 2011 at 4:38pm
  E1.31 is all network based units. Each one will have its own IP address just like your network printers, laptops, ect.  If you have any sort of network in your house (wifi for example) You have done this kind of setup before.  Mixing E1.31 devices just require using a plain network hub.  Its really pretty simple.   Here is a diagrams put together by Fast Eddy from the ACL board. It does a great job of showing setup for it

http://auschristmaslighting.com/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=647.0;attach=1102 - http://auschristmaslighting.com/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=647.0;attach=1102






-------------
Chris

www.lightsonsixth.com


Posted By: ChrisL1976
Date Posted: 12 Jul 2011 at 4:40pm
LC.....its going to depend on how Michael sets it up.  E1.31 and DL dongles use different ports on your computer.  So there is no issue there


-------------
Chris

www.lightsonsixth.com


Posted By: ChrisL1976
Date Posted: 12 Jul 2011 at 4:47pm
You do have to realize that one DR4 has the capability of allowing you up to 8,192 channels.


-------------
Chris

www.lightsonsixth.com


Posted By: tonyjmartin
Date Posted: 12 Jul 2011 at 5:46pm
Originally posted by BigDPS

Ok I'm lost here. Does this mean that if I don't use DMX, my present system will be stuck at 1.0.69 forever ? I have no immediate intention of going DMX at the moment. I just want a quick copy paste feature from Aurora.

Please enlighten me cause I'm really confused. Damn DMX. Dead

That's exactly what it means.  The proprietary LOR and D-Light protocols are no longer supported by Aurora. Ouch

Originally posted by ChrisL1976

You do have to realize that one DR4 has the capability of allowing you up to 8,192 channels.

I'd gladly trade that for a couple hundred channels that are less tedious to sequence and a show that runs as scheduled.



-------------
Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson


Posted By: BigDPS
Date Posted: 12 Jul 2011 at 6:10pm
Before everything get's turned off in favor of DMX, why can't we have the version that had the copy and paste fiasco working? If this is the only feature that is working in the beta update you guys have been working on, then I'll be happy.

This is getting more and more frustrating. I hope Michael will come up forth and explain us why we, the "normal" users without DMX, are being dropped?

Would I pay to get the copy and paste fixed version? Yup, no problem. But to leave me hanging after patiently waiting after being promised new versions coming and so on, this is not kosher in my books.


-------------
http://www.aurorashow.com/">


Posted By: tonyjmartin
Date Posted: 12 Jul 2011 at 6:18pm
Originally posted by BigDPS

This is getting more and more frustrating. I hope Michael will come up forth and explain us why we, the "normal" users without DMX, are being dropped?


From the Aurora Facebook page:

I am not at liberty to discuss the details of how the proprietary protocols work, but after hours of testing we determined that in 2011 DMX is going to be the more stable protocol.

Although not everyone has experienced "sticky channels", the problem has been very real for several years and has affected dozens of Aurora customers. The proprietary protocols have undergone changes to deal with the problem, but unfortunately those changes have introduced entirely new problems. At some point we have to cut our losses with the protocols and move on. The hardware vendors seem to be doing the same thing right now by encouraging DMX development.

Back when computers were much slower and we were only controlling simple light strands it made sense for the effects processing to take place on the controller itself. Today's computing power really makes this completely unnecessary, and the old protocols really show their age when presented with modern devices such as pixel strands (the protocol bandwidth requirements do not scale well). The demands on the PIC microcontroller are much less when doing "dumb" intensity rendering without the worry of ramp timings, shimmers, twinkles, combos thereof, and the parsing of a far more complex protocol than DMX is. In this way, the PIC based controllers are automatically more reliable with DMX.




-------------
Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson


Posted By: Jonathan
Date Posted: 12 Jul 2011 at 10:44pm
^^^^ Micheal is spot on with that you know.  A more reliable, industry standard protocol will result in less user issues in the long run, and let's face it, there is a certain amount of relief in just knowing it will probably work.  (Yes, probably.)  As some of us well know, things can and do go wrong (and it almost always happens within a few hours before our shows go 'live', doesn't it?). 

Now imagine trying to provide support for that on two different protocol fronts.  It's time consuming, and with dual protocols supported, the chance of one piece of code for one protocol messing this up for the other protocol only increases the chance for bugs.  This could (yes, could) become a nightmare scenario from a support standpoint.  It boils down to this:  The more time Michael spends resolving protocol issues that develop each time the existing firmware is updated, the less time he spends developing the cool stuff. 

Even if someone doesn't want the ability to, say, launch a blast of fog on command in an animated Halloween display instead of relying on a hand remote or timer, many of us do.  If Aurora can't remain competitive and adaptive, it is ultimately destined to fade into oblivion.  (And let's face it.  That would really suck.)

We all know that Aurora is not Microsoft or Apple, with hundreds of programmers.  All this is because one computer programmer solved a very real problem a several years back.  That simple scheduler code turned into a vision to take what worked (well, sometimes) and Michael turned it into Aurora, something that worked better. Not perfect, but better.  And we're doing it again by moving forward into a better (and industry proven) technology with a heck of a lot more possibilities for those who want to see that happen, and we get a more stable code in DMX in which to make all this happen.  Even though there may be growing pains as we convert over, devoting our time solely to developing the potential of DMX is ultimately the best choice (just like doing away with 'close enough' automatically generated timelines has been). 

Even if the change seems drastic, it is coming nonetheless.  If Aurora is to remain competitive, it must be able to not only correctly predict the future of this hobby, it must also take us there. 


-------------
~Jonathan


Posted By: tonyjmartin
Date Posted: 13 Jul 2011 at 12:09am
In principle, I can somewhat agree with Aurora's shifting to DMX, given the recent difficulties with the LOR and D-Light protocols.  But that is not what has been presented to us for the last six months or more.  And to move directly to E1.13 exclusively, with the far too casual attitude toward users needing to go out and buy a $145 adapter like the ECG-DR4, is unacceptable.  And the rumor that a cheaper E1.31 adapter is in the works is of little comfort when there have been promises made by Aurora that have been repeatedly broken for the last two years.

Given that many came to Aurora after Spectrum's demise in the fall of 2008, and there had been talk of an ongoing relationship between the two companies as recent as the 2010 holiday season, there are a few things worth mentioning.  Users have been polled for nearly two years as to whether or not they would want to purchase DMX firmware for D-Light, and even if they thought they had a need to use DMX at all.  The results have been consistently in the negative, on several forums.  And all the while, D-Light controllers are still being offered for sale with the D-Light protocol installed.

But for the last six months, even while there have been updates as to the offering of DMX in addition to supporting a version of the D-Light protocol, I have had my questions about supported firmware versions and the ongoing relationship be blatantly ignored by both companies.  This is again, unacceptable.  And it is too much like the situation that occurred when Spectrum was discontinued, and more recently, when Aurora went off the market to become unsupported freeware.

This history would seem to indicate that we should not trust our display plans to any further promises.  And as I said in September of 2008 when Spectrum was discontinued ( http://www.d-light.us/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=1106&p=7814#p7814 - link ), you can come up with all the excuses you like, but:
From a customer standpoint, the "Why" is irrelevant.  A customer pays for a product suitable for the intended use.  A vendor is obliged to provide said product.


-------------
Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson


Posted By: ChrisL1976
Date Posted: 13 Jul 2011 at 12:41am
I am sure this will piss someone off, but seriously, when was the last time most of us have paid Aurora anything?  I paid for my copy of Aurora 3 years ago.  Do we really expect unpaid upgrades for years?   Being Aurora was free last year, I dont think too many people paid them anything.  If I remember right, we only get 1 year upgrades for free.  So I would think most have expired.  Now ofcourse I know Aurora wants its customers to be happy, but at some point decisions have to be made to keep the support and development costs to a minimum or they mine as well close up shop.

Here's a question......What if Aurora followed software company examples like Autodesk and required users to pay an upgrade subscription every year.  Would you pay the upfront software cost  plus a yearly fee of say $40 to ensure you had the latest and greatest version?   With the niche market this hobby is and the amount of competition, there will be a point at which new users are not going to be enough and current users will need to help keep their chosen software moving forward.

I would not think some yearly fee would be too out of line to keep the programming computer running and us users with a nice running program.


-------------
Chris

www.lightsonsixth.com


Posted By: onewish1
Date Posted: 13 Jul 2011 at 4:38am
I wish someone like myself that does not have any electronics background can understand and be able to use dmx easier.  I read your posts about doing this and that.. no clue what any of that means.. I need a dummies version!!.. I am afraid to make any changes because I just do not have the knowledge you guys have.  Most of this thread is like reading a foreign language to me.  I wanted a setup & software that was easy to use, when I bought it .. it was claiming to be like that.. no upgrades since ... still the same now and then problems with both.. and actually from the get go I have been struggling with both hardware & software.  Would I pay $40.00 a year for someone to hold my hand and actually answer me from the companies when I ask a stupid question.. and not have to search though here and try and find an answer that I don't understand... heck yes!!!


Posted By: MrChristmas2000
Date Posted: 13 Jul 2011 at 6:49am
The problem is that hooking up a DMX network is no different that nooking up a LOR/d-light network.
 
DMX Network
Computer --> Dongel --> [(DMX in) Controller (DMX out)]  --> [(DMX in) Controller (DMX out)] etc.
 
LOR/d-ligh network
Computer --> Dongel --> [(LOR IN) Controller (LOR out)] --> [(LOR in) Controller (LOR out)] etc.
 
Cabling is exactly the same type cables. (DMX does offer some cabling options though)
 
Sequencing the same.
The big deal is that there is more equipment available that supports the DMX communications language that supports the LOR/d-light language.
 
Any questions?
 
Tom
 
 


-------------
http://www.aurorashow.com/">

Holding breath for DMX.


Posted By: BigDPS
Date Posted: 13 Jul 2011 at 6:51am
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, my version of Aurora is working for me. The copy and paste time is outrageous. Why can't we have the beta copy that had fixed this and be on our own? I just want to use this portion of the program, Borealis is working albeit some ghost issues but nothing to spill milk over.

I understand that is a business but still, we have been holding on empty promises for too long only to be told we, the older hobbyists with our now antique LOR/D-Light protocol, are stuck in the past with a discontinued product in favor of the DMX crowd.

I'd be curious to see who could/would afford to start this hobby tomorrow with DMX protocol versus the "old" one. I'd like to see how much money it would cost to have the same comparable effect.


-------------
http://www.aurorashow.com/">


Posted By: deweycooter
Date Posted: 13 Jul 2011 at 7:08am
It really sounds like there's more at play here than any of us know.  I've dabbled in the past, messing around with the protocol - it wasn't that hard to understand.  For Aurora to outright drop support for that protocol going forward... it sounds like there's quite a bit more to it - maybe a game of cat and mouse going on with the protocol.  Michael's smart, so I don't take the decision to go this direction lightly, nor do I think he had an easy time making that decision. 

As I see it, the problem is that anyone can change the protocol - it's not a standard.  D-Light introduces shimmer and twinkle ramps - LOR can choose to incorporate those, ignore them, or go a completely different direction. 

LOR is the bigger dog in the fight. What do you do if you're D-Light?  You either try to keep in step with them or you're at the mercy of each software vendor to incorporate your specific protocol implementation.  I'm not familiar with S2 at all, but I'm betting that they're not going to implement D-Light-specific commands (please correct me if I'm wrong).  S2 users would either live without the D-Light commands or be compelled to only buy LOR controllers.  Ladies and gentlemen, vendor lock-in.  Steve Jobs would be proud.

So Aurora (and D-Light, for that matter) have a choice to make - keep updating to follow a protocol that sees changes every year and still has problems, or go DMX.  No more vendor-specific protocols.  No more instability.  Aurora can send out a stream of data to any controller - if the controller does the wrong thing, the problem is the controller, not Aurora.

Tony, I agree.  It kinda sucks.  I have a dozen or so D-Light controllers and another dozen Lynx.  I've been running a 2-network show the past 2 years - one network on D-Light, one on DMX.  What I have is not broke.  But it just seems that using DMX going forward is going to simplify things. 

I think there may be still more things to shake out of all this.  One thing I wonder about is if we can use a future release of the editor with the current version of the scheduler..???  If the sequence data is compatible, then we might only be looking at converting controllers to DMX, not a new adapter.  Or...(!!!) there might even be a way to make new sequences work without making any changes to your existing infrastructure.

Regardless, we still have some time.  And I think users not wanting to upgrade are not necessarily dead in the water.


-------------
http://www.deweycooter.com/wiki/index.php/Aurora - Aurora Lights Wiki
http://www.aurorashow.com/">


Posted By: bdkeen
Date Posted: 13 Jul 2011 at 7:29am
Due to financial reasons I've been a bit out of the main stream the past year but have been lurking and watching the developments.
 
Biggest question I have is: Are all the main players of sequencing software just dropping the LOR/D-light protocols and opting for only DMX protocol requiring their users/customers to invest another $100 to $200 on an interface plus any additional costs to make the controllers DMX compatable?
 
I was really looking forward to the somewhat promised fixes and the addition of DMX along side using the D-Light/LOR equipment (the DMX version that was made available to me never worked much at all for me due to the lack of a D-Light V3 dongle and failure of Aurora to support any other DMX dongle). I can understand using DMX but am disappointed to hear that what the product originally supported and those that supported Aurora all this time appear to be left out in the cold unless they are willing to jump on the DMX band wagon.
 
Seems there have been too numerous mentions of fixes and enhancements and more often than not we read in these forums that there's just one minor bug to fix than Wham! things take a new direction leaving those of us not prilvideged standing.
 
Those privlidged individuals have been able to grow along with the direction Aurora has been taking making the pain of change less distasteful.. For the rest of us this is very bad tasting.
 
 


Posted By: ChrisL1976
Date Posted: 13 Jul 2011 at 7:38am
Originally posted by BigDPS


I'd be curious to see who could/would afford to start this hobby tomorrow with DMX protocol versus the "old" one. I'd like to see how much money it would cost to have the same comparable effect.


Honestly, its not bad, depending on who you go with.

LOR controller will give you out of the box assembled DMX capability for $120

D-light  controller will give you out of the box assembled DMX capability for $95

Lynx Express will give you a unassembled DMX capability for around $60-65

JS1 DR4 in Aluminum case  $145 (recommended)
JS1 DR4 w/ no case    $125

So lets play newbie who buys 3 DMX controllers:
(assuming shipping/plugs/enclosure/ect all the same price)

LOR scenario:  3 controllers ($360) and 1 DR4 ($145)  Total $505

D-light scenario:  3 controllers ($285) and 1 DR4 ($145) Total $430

Lynx scenario: 3 controllers ($195) and 1 DR4 (145)  Total $340




-------------
Chris

www.lightsonsixth.com


Posted By: tonyjmartin
Date Posted: 13 Jul 2011 at 9:19am
Originally posted by ChrisL1976

Do we really expect unpaid upgrades for years? <snip> What if Aurora followed software company examples like Autodesk

No one has raised this issue.  Don't ask such a question, assume an answer, and then insert it into the debate as if it supports anyone's position.  And to make a comparison to a CADD program that costs thousands of dollars to show us how well off we are is absurd.

Originally posted by deweycooter

It really sounds like there's more at play here than any of us know.

No.  From Aurora's Facebook comments, it is quite clear.  The D-Light and LOR protocols were modified to address pic-related controller issues, and to incorporate support for them into future versions of Aurora has been deemed too problematic.

Originally posted by deweycooter

Tony, I agree.  It kinda sucks. <snip> But it just seems that using DMX going forward is going to simplify things.  <snip> If the sequence data is compatible, then we might only be looking at converting controllers to DMX, not a new adapter.

That is not what Aurora has brought to the table.  I can handle a sucky situation and refit my controllers to DMX if that is where things are going.  But here is what has been happening:  We are told that updates are coming, and they don't.  We are told that our hardware will be supported at earlier firmware, and then it is not.  We are told that DMX will be supported, and then we are told that it will REQUIRE another type of adapter costing nearly five times that of the DMX-capable dongle that D-Light users already own.  I find this progression of events unacceptable.

Originally posted by BigDPS

I understand that is a business but still, we have been holding on empty promises for too long only to be told we, the older hobbyists with our now antique LOR/D-Light protocol, are stuck in the past with a discontinued product in favor of the DMX crowd.

THAT is the heart of the issue, and it is continually being deluted by telling us how wonderful something that we do not need will be for us.

-------------
Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson


Posted By: ChrisL1976
Date Posted: 13 Jul 2011 at 10:16am
Originally posted by tonyjmartin


No one has raised this issue.  Don't ask such a question, assume an answer, and then insert it into the debate as if it supports anyone's position.  And to make a comparison to a CADD program that costs thousands of dollars to show us how well off we are is absurd.

 

Seriously, I can insert what ever I wish into this conversation since development and support cost are always an issue. It is that difficult to see that  no money equals no support or any development. We all know this economy is making everyone cut cost and look at whats going to bring in money. 


Now whether the software costs are $100 or $10,000, its makes no difference, its all comparable. Its companies like Autodesk are producing products yearly. Updating old versions to new ones. Do you seriously think they could do that without the subscription program. Money for development and support has to come from somewhere. ESPECIALLY in a niche market like this. In a competitive niche market, new users are not going to cut it.  Companies like LOR can use hardware sales to support their software R & D.   Unfortunately, Aurora has no product line to help with the this.   I'm not going to get into LSP's method.



    


-------------
Chris

www.lightsonsixth.com


Posted By: tonyjmartin
Date Posted: 13 Jul 2011 at 10:47am
Originally posted by ChrisL1976

Now whether the software costs are $100 or $10,000, its makes no difference, its all comparable.

I respectfully disagree.  And I am dumbfounded as to what you are accomplishing by repeatedly offering your own justifications for Aurora's business decisions.  None of this has occurred in a vacuum, so I dare say that most of us are already aware of the circumstances surrounding recent events.  But many very publicly loyal users have been adversely affected by Aurora's actions, so we are voicing our displeasure with this continued pattern.  If you have not been harmed, then I ask that you give Aurora the opportunity to respond to its users' concerns as it sees fit.



-------------
Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson


Posted By: bdkeen
Date Posted: 13 Jul 2011 at 5:32pm
Christmas Lighting of this nature is definitely a niche' market. Don't know about anyone else but I've been asked so many times I can't remember by folks looking and wanting to get involved what I recommend in both hardware and software.. I've always highly recommended Aurora..
Would I now recommend Aurora? Not sure I would any more, will have to wait and see what the future brings to those of us not ready to fully jump on the DMX train.
 
Perhaps if we had the knowledge and experiences that someone in the beta group has had and could have grown along with Aurora to the point the decision was made we might be singing a different tune. But to have been slightly mislead to think a newer, better version was just around the corner, then told DMX only (and I think that was announced in Facebook - don't think there's the same official announcement on these forums to date and Aurora web site pages point at 1.1 - not one word of mention what's going on here and on facebook)
 
But for the moment when someone asks me "What's the best software for doing the lights?" I'm not going to be able to give them the same answer as I once did - will probably just keep silent.
 
 
On another thought - Whatever happened to the plug-in concept? Much the same as Vixen currently supports the many different controllers and devices? Will this new fangled DMX only version support plug-ins for various controller and device types?


Posted By: ChrisL1976
Date Posted: 13 Jul 2011 at 8:52pm
Originally posted by tonyjmartin

then I ask that you give Aurora the opportunity to respond to its users' concerns as it sees fit.



I'm just merely voicing my opinion on my stance on the situation. Kind of like you are voicing you opinion on every post someone makes.  

I'm sure when Michael sees fit, I am sure he will let us know what his plan is.


-------------
Chris

www.lightsonsixth.com


Posted By: JohnnyL
Date Posted: 13 Jul 2011 at 9:38pm

A brief history. I am a pre order customer. I, like many was a little “frustrated” (I’m being nice here) with Spectrum. We all remember our shows not working as they should. I discovered the Aurora site and bought it on the spot. Although I was still using LOR to get through that season, we planned to use Aurora in 09. All I could say was WOW, how simple it was going to be to program the new RGB stuff we had planned. This was a very nice program, simple, basic and easy use. Then, we discovered the “freak strobe like effects” bug when hooked up to a DCx16 (or 3). I reported this “bug” and though a couple of people did try to help, (you know who you are) the “big guy” was absent and this problem was never resolved. Doing some testing I also discovered importing  channels from an existing sequence didn’t work very well. All of the “f...fly” channels import flawlessly, the other RGB channels did not! This had to be remedied manually. It doesn’t really take that much time to do but it is hassle and this should have been addressed… it was not addressed. It was barely even acknowledged. We decided to use Aurora despite its “little bugs”. Although we were (2) songs short in 09 because of the DCx16 thing we still had a good season, I wont say it was flawless but all in all it was good. The scheduler has its “bugs”. Aurora likes to entertain the good folks from the bar 2 blocks away staring @midnight. That was pretty funny when I shut it down @1:30am and heard cars starting and leaving. I saw others were experiencing the same “bug” with no results. Now, I no longer trust this program to run my shows. I’ve become convinced the powers that be have absolutely no interest in addressing my issues or anyone else’s for that matter. Updates, fixes and deadlines too numerous to count were promised and none have come to pass. Then, right after a very good friend of mine purchased one of last licenses, he decides to make Aurora “Freeware”. He is still not too happy about that. (sorry Danny) So my credibility takes a hit. I won’t elaborate further on credibility. Then Aurora is back in business, all is well. More promises are made, deadlines and guarantees and goodwill flows again. Then, he announces on “Facebook” (not here of coarse) that it will be DMX only! Are you kidding me? REALLY ? It isn’t our fault that you cannot or will not keep up on firmware updates coming from D-Light or LOR and adapt Aurora to stay current. It must be a lot easier from Aurora’s standpoint to take the DMX route. The competition does it all, if you haven’t noticed. Maybe, just maybe if there was some kind of consistency coming from Aurora sales might have been higher. Don’t you think? Do you think there is a reason “beta testers” don’t have the same problems we do is because they are using a “newer version” that isn’t available to the rest of us? I will purchase LSP for this year and relegate Aurora to be a backup program just in case LSP hasn’t fixed anything either. He seems to know who is buttering the bread over there and actually DOES try to fix things. So I guess instead of paying to upgrade my Aurora license (which I was fully prepared to do) Ill spend it on LSP instead and we’ll see what happens…

 

John



-------------
"In God We Trust" all others pay cash


Posted By: tonyjmartin
Date Posted: 13 Jul 2011 at 10:37pm
Originally posted by ChrisL1976

I'm just merely voicing my opinion on my stance on the situation. Kind of like you are voicing you opinion on every post someone makes.  

I am not voicing my opinion on "every post someone makes."  And just because you make an analogy, that doesn't make it true.  But I'll make one, since you seem to like them so much.  Having a discussion with you is like trying to reason with a drunk, so I will modify my polite request to more aptly coincide with your level of understanding:

With all due respect. Chris, SHUT THE f**k UP!



-------------
Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson


Posted By: Bigindian
Date Posted: 14 Jul 2011 at 5:35am
Gentlemen,
 
In the interest of keeping this friendly, lets just agree to disagree.  We all have our opinions and ideas.  Before this gets out of hand, lets just let it go. 
 
I agree with both of you and I am sure that many will agree with both of you.  Lets just let it go. 
 
Please?
 
 


-------------
The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources.
Albert Einstein


Posted By: BigDPS
Date Posted: 15 Jul 2011 at 1:28pm
Sorry BigIndian, but I can't let it go. I have spent too much many as it is to upgrade to DMX. Wife will have my balls on a silver platter. Hate having to hide all knives/scissors every night ever since the word is Aurora is going DMX only.

How come nobody can answer my tiny question "where can we have this beta copy where the copy and paste is fixed?"

 If it works and Borealis understands it as it is, you can DMX, BMX, FBI, CIA, IGA or whatever you want with the program. Just don't stick a lollipop in our month long enough for us to like the taste to finally yank it out for no reason.

Is it too much to ask to have the beta copy and tells us, we are on our own? I'd be willing to take a chance rather than be stuck out in nowhere.

Just my 2 cents.


-------------
http://www.aurorashow.com/">


Posted By: ChrisL1976
Date Posted: 15 Jul 2011 at 6:30pm
Originally posted by BigDPS

Sorry BigIndian, but I can't let it go.


BigDPS

I do not believe BigIndian was referring to anyone sharing their opinion.  I am pretty sure it was a response to the difference of opinion between Mr Martin and myself.  Since it seemed Mr Martin got so emotional over someone with a different opinion than his own, he felt the only way to stop me from voicing my opinion was to "respectfully" use pretty bold profanity.  Out of respect for the rest of the community here, I chose just let it go and not respond so the community would not have to exposed to any more vulgar and inappropriate posts from Mr Martin.

I know on other forums, language such like that would result in immediate banning.  Whether any discipline actions result from this is up to Aurora, but I would ask Mr Martin to please in the future, remember this is a public forum where kids could be reading this and I am sure I not the only member who found the use of such language uncalled for and way out of line.




-------------
Chris

www.lightsonsixth.com


Posted By: JohnnyL
Date Posted: 15 Jul 2011 at 7:36pm

Chris, stay on the high road. You should be applauded for not stepping into the sewer, nor be condemned for your opinion.

 

John



-------------
"In God We Trust" all others pay cash


Posted By: tonyjmartin
Date Posted: 15 Jul 2011 at 8:23pm
Originally posted by JohnnyL

Chris, stay on the high road. You should be applauded for not stepping into the sewer, nor be condemned for your opinion.


Chris has repeatedly belittled my disagreeing with Aurora's recent decision for many days by taking all sorts of personal pot-shots here and elsewhere (i.e.: claiming that I resented Michael's mother's poor health http://forums.planetchristmas.com/index.php?/topic/46134-aurora-11-development-has-resumed/page__p__553769#entry553769 - here , etc.)  I INTENTIONALLY kept the discussion civil on the various forums, but then I let a bleeped word slip in this thread, and Chris is on the high road?  Lovely.




-------------
Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson


Posted By: ChrisL1976
Date Posted: 15 Jul 2011 at 10:30pm
 Comments were made, responses posted. As I said before, I am letting it go.  Other forums have enough drama, we do not need it here.


-------------
Chris

www.lightsonsixth.com


Posted By: JohnnyL
Date Posted: 16 Jul 2011 at 12:06am
ok, Tony attack me if you wish. i could care less. in my opinion you are way out of line.
 
John


-------------
"In God We Trust" all others pay cash


Posted By: tonyjmartin
Date Posted: 16 Jul 2011 at 6:50am
Originally posted by JohnnyL

ok, Tony attack me if you wish. i could care less. in my opinion you are way out of line.
 
John

I disagree with your assessment of the situation, but I have certainly not attacked you.



-------------
Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson


Posted By: caretaker
Date Posted: 16 Jul 2011 at 10:02am

Ok so I will throw my 2 cents in here...  When I started this hobby I bought D-Light controllers and LOR software and for the first two years my show ran almost flawlessly. Then D-Light decided to introduce there own software "Spectrum" and I jumped on the band wagon and bought it. Needless to say I never had a show run on spectrum and when D-Light announced they were discontinuing Spectrum and offering a discount for Aurora I purchased it and ran my show with it albeit a few minor glitches. Then it was announced Aurora was no longer supporting it's software due to poor sales   I ended up going back to LOR  for my 2009 season.I purchased Light Show Pro and after finding out the learning curve for it was a little steeper than I anticipated and finances became tight I canceled my 2010 show and began doing research.

This hobby is changing by leaps and bounds first with DMX and then RGB and the software is this point is having a hard time keeping up with it. Companies like Animated Lighting and LOR can create hardware products that interface perfectly with there software because there engineers talk back and forth and work out the bugs. When you go the DIY route or D-light you can only hope that the software people can work out the bugs and if there lucky talk to the hardware people for further help.

Ultimately you as the hobbyist have a decision to make: If you want to go with the latest and greatest gadgets you will need software that is able to keep up with them and that may mean you have to wait till that software matures to a stable point. You can decided to bypass the latest and greatest and stick to the trusted and true and wait till all the bugs are worked out of the latest and greatest. Or you can go with a free ware approach like vixen and if it doesn't work your not out any money.

My wife has a $7000 sewing machine and does machine embroidery design. She has one software package that cost her $1800 and is now obsolete because the company stopped supporting it and it will not run and Windows 7. She also has another software package which cost her $2400 and they want her to upgrade to the next version for $1200. Why am I pointing this out? Because niche market software (yes animated lighting software is niche market) does not sell the millions of copies a game program does so the companies sell it at a higher cost to try to recover there expenses.  So as xmas light hobbyists we can either decide we are going to pay a premium price for a piece of software that does what we want it to do OR we can continue to hope other hobbyists like ourselves continue to develop software in there spare time and realize we are getting what we paid for. Does this mean we don't have the right to complain when we are promised something and it is not delivered? No, but put yourself in the shoes of a programmer like the one doing Aurora and say you spent close to 200 hours programming, couple hundred and a website and when you only sell a couple hundred copies of your program you quickly realize it is not going to pay the bills so you work on it when you can and now you have a crowd complaining about this problem and that you try to fix as many bugs as you can but there is still more complaints. At this point you can see how easy it would be to toss in the towel and shut every thing down.

So let's just all behave like adults, wait till the program is ready and if your still unhappy well chalk it up as a bad investment and move on. Either that or think about investing several thousand dollars to pay for the programmers time to get it done they way you want.


Soapbox mode off



-------------
Jeff Squires aka Caretaker
http://www.ahazelhurstchristmas.com


Posted By: MrChristmas2000
Date Posted: 16 Jul 2011 at 10:41am
This has sparked more lively conversation that anything else has for a while.
 
Right on about this being a hobby.
 
If you go look at the cost of software for running professional light shows at concerts etc. you would have a heart attack.
 
No one piece of software out there has everything running perfectly. Some are getting close but still have a ways to go.
 
The lighting hardware community is outpacing the software by leaps and bounds. It's not DMX that is the problem for them it's the RGB and huge amounts of 'channels' it takes to run the newer devices. Now there is the ability to program down to a single rgb led. If you have just one string with 75 or 100 leds that is 225 to 300 channels just for that string. Then put 16 strands of 75 leds on a Mega Tree and that is 3600 channels alone. You have to have new hardware interfaces alone to handle that channel count not to mention a software package and PC with the horsepower to drive it.
 
Think of this as building a car from scratch. Even an experienced automobile engineer would require require many more hours than a team of his peers doing the same task.
 
The reason for the move to the DMX communications protocol vs LOR is that it is simply a lighting industry standard. That let's the hardware community develop new hardware without worrowing about whether it will run with XYZ piece of software. They all talk the same language. Why do you think that LOR and d-light has now come to support that protocol.
 
The last thing I have to say about development is that when you are a one man band and you get sick or have family problems there is no one else there to beat the drumb. Family comes first and this software development is way down the list at that point.
 
I will step down from my soapbox now as well.
 
Tom


-------------
http://www.aurorashow.com/">

Holding breath for DMX.


Posted By: BigDPS
Date Posted: 16 Jul 2011 at 3:32pm
And yet, no one can still answer my question....sheesh.

-------------
http://www.aurorashow.com/">


Posted By: MrChristmas2000
Date Posted: 16 Jul 2011 at 7:28pm
Originally posted by BigDPS


How come nobody can answer my tiny question "where can we have this beta copy where the copy and paste is fixed?"
 
I think this was your question. Big%20smile
 
IMHO
There is only one person that can answer that question and he hasn't posted. I bet if he answers that question for now it would be throught a personal PM.


-------------
http://www.aurorashow.com/">

Holding breath for DMX.


Posted By: ChrisL1976
Date Posted: 17 Jul 2011 at 12:15pm
Originally posted by MrChristmas2000


 
The lighting hardware community is outpacing the software by leaps and bounds.


I think that is going to be the biggest hurdle for developers. How do you balance development/support with final cost estimates in a  market that is used to paying $100 for 500 channel software support that now suddenly is in the thousands and require support levels near or above commercial software that costs significantly more.  All while keeping your doors open and the lower channel users happy as well.  Its not a pair of shoes I would want to be in.

Originally posted by MrChristmas2000

  No one piece of software out there has everything running perfectly. Some are getting close but still have a ways to go. 


This is the one thing that surprises me with the amount of RGB sales you hear of today on different boards.  People are spending thousands on RGB without a total sequencing software solution being available. I bet there are a lot of crossed fingers. Of course there is always next year. LOL




-------------
Chris

www.lightsonsixth.com


Posted By: Buckeyelights
Date Posted: 18 Jul 2011 at 8:05am

This is the one thing that surprises me with the amount of RGB sales you hear of today on different boards.  People are spending thousands on RGB without a total sequencing software solution being available. I bet there are a lot of crossed fingers. Of course there is always next year. LOL
[/QUOTE]
I'm not ready to shell out the cash on RGB until a sequencing software is shown to be reliable and relatively easy to use.  Although the RGB stuff is really cool and awesome! Every video of it I see makes it harder and harder for me to hold my conservative position.


Posted By: ChrisL1976
Date Posted: 18 Jul 2011 at 8:26am
Originally posted by Buckeyelights

Every video of it I see makes it harder and harder for me to hold my conservative position.


If definitely requires some creative balance to not just push into a stage production and stay with a Christmassy feeling display.   


-------------
Chris

www.lightsonsixth.com


Posted By: LightsOnLogan
Date Posted: 18 Jul 2011 at 9:55am
For those who have been asking:

I have considered an open beta with our current progress so far.  What is holding us back from doing this is:

1) Although Aurora itself is working with the new copy/paste and all sorts of goodies, we did make a slight change to the DLS file.  With that comes a file converter to upgrade old DLS files to new ones, and there is one bug left remaining in the DLS upgrade code that is outstanding (specifically, there are glitches with the ramp durations post-upgrade).  I don't want to release a version which is known to trash sequence files.

2) There is a licensing issue to deal with.  We've added a new third party component to Aurora.  We don't have to license this for beta testing (we just use demo mode), but before we can release it to the public we need to license the component.  Paying for this is scheduled just prior to release because a new version generates sales (to pay for the component); an interim beta does not.

3) D-Light and LOR output is known to be broken in the current version because it contains the broken protocol changes.  You can write sequence files with it, but you can't do anything with them.  Due to the DLS changes, the files created with the new version may or may not be compatible with the old scheduler.

For a public beta, items #1 and #2 would have to be addressed immediately.  Item #3 can be fairly easily rolled back to the old protocol for the D2XX driver only (not VCP).  This plan would require another beta test cycle which would take about a month or so to make sure everything is working together properly.  That is a throw away month because it is already known that the protocol is going away anyway.

I know it is controversial, but we need to be moving forward right now, not backward.  If we stay stuck in the mud we will have another chaotic 2009 support situation all over again.

As for how niche of a market this is, I'm going to share some aggregate statistics (something few businesses will do):  over a five year development cycle, we have issued 313 Aurora keys.  Over two thirds of those were issued in 2008.  The majority of keys were not issued at full price.  Even if we had a spotless reputation (which we by far do not), almost everyone who would consider buying Aurora has already done so.  Our year-to-date sales: one.  Our expected sales with a flawless release: maybe 10 if we are lucky.  I have dropped in and out of development to pursue other projects because this one clearly does not pay the bills.  To top it off, I have dealt with serious family illnesses, which, when your business isn't profitable anyway, take priority.

We have enough changes to Aurora in the beta cycle right now that by all means I should be stamping "2.0" on it and asking for money all over again.  I never expected the 1.x version to endure a 5+ year life cycle.  The problem is, I made a promise to deliver DMX as a part of the 1.x series and, even if it takes longer than expected, I intend to deliver on that promise.

It's pretty bad when I wouldn't even buy my own software right now because things are such a mess.  That is why it is time to put aside the proprietary stuff (LOR & D-Light protocols, FTDI based dongles and drivers, etc.) which have been nothing but support trouble for years now and to move on by focusing on stability and standards (DMX over E1.31 [TCP/IP stack]).  When stability returns to normal instead of the exception, then we can discuss re-introducing some proprietary protocols as plugins.  Until then, this is the direction Aurora must go.

BTW - If a version 2 ever happens as a commercial product, it will be priced near the $300 target (instead of $100) and will only come with one year of support (instead of entire major version support like we did with 1.x) *or* it will introduce a tiered pricing system.

LOR will always have the advantage over the competition here because, due to hardware sales, they can keep the software discounted to the $100 price point where nobody else can compete price wise.  With the number of competitors out there right now it really isn't possible for anyone not tied to a hardware operation to keep selling the software at the $100 price point.  The only sales traction anyone has with this many competitors is that everyone loves to jump from software to software looking for the next best thing... which is where Aurora is at a loss because we're still stuck dealing with problems from 2009!  It's time for Aurora to move on past this.

Michael


-------------
http://www.aurorashow.com/">


Posted By: LightsOnLogan
Date Posted: 18 Jul 2011 at 10:02am
If anyone has a better idea I'm all ears, but until then y'all are aware of the reality of the situation and why we are burning bridges to move forward.

Michael


-------------
http://www.aurorashow.com/">


Posted By: brunnesa
Date Posted: 18 Jul 2011 at 10:21am
Michael,
I think you should just call this next DMX version "Aurora 2.0" and charge us for it.  This will give you some income and hopefully allow you to work on it more.  I am willing to pay $300 if it works great.  I will convert my all of my controllers to DMX, if I can get some software that gives me all options that I have now with the D-light protocol. 


Posted By: BigDPS
Date Posted: 18 Jul 2011 at 8:17pm
Thank you Michael for clarifying some things.

All I ever wanted was this damn copy and paste. Do I care that my setup starts on it's own at midnight? Not really since it just looks pretty and no music.

Don't you have a fairly working beta copy of the copy and paste that could be sold, rented or whatever, to those who like me, don't give 2 cents to DMX?

I understand that sometimes stuff might get crashing but we all work on copies of copies, don't we? If I'm  able to copy and paste much faster, then half the work is right there: waiting for it to finish. Most of the time, I would just reset the damn thing and start over.

I betya most users of your software are like me, happy to have what they got. No software in this world is perfect. If it is, why are there so many updates/patches and so on?

I am willing to pay for a copy and paste version if this is possible. I'm sure I'm not the only one and yes, I would assume the responsibility of crashing my own setup since I'm the one harassing you in trying to get a workable copy.

And last and probably the most important of all this post, I hope your mom is feeling better.

BigDPS


-------------
http://www.aurorashow.com/">


Posted By: caretaker
Date Posted: 23 Jul 2011 at 10:40am

Michael,

To me it is more than obvious that your priorities should be:

  1. Your Family and your own well being
  2. Your lively-hood (directly related to number one)

     9. Your development of Aurora

In regards to the development of Aurora I think you should move forward to produce a new product that will be stable and then work on features the users are asking for beyond the core features.  As far as the 1.x development goes if it is possible to put out a semi stable version without DMX that isn't going to require a large investment of time do so.

Another option is to maybe partner up with another software out there such as X-lights which is a stable show playing system allowing you to concentrate on the sequencer part of the program OR go to a collaborative effort in which you would no longer be charging for the software but it would free your time up to do other paying projects...  

Ultimately what ever you decide to do I appreciate your efforts to date and support whatever you decide to and I am sure many others do too. 

Originally posted by LightsOnLogan

If anyone has a better idea I'm all ears, but until then y'all are aware of the reality of the situation and why we are burning bridges to move forward.


Michael


-------------
Jeff Squires aka Caretaker
http://www.ahazelhurstchristmas.com


Posted By: BigDPS
Date Posted: 25 Jul 2011 at 11:29am
^^^^^Exactly my thoughts. My version of Aurora is stable enough for me at the moment. I just want a faster copy and paste to help me do my sequencing. I don't want a program that does it all for me, just one that lets me do what I know I can do at a fashionable pace.

-------------
http://www.aurorashow.com/">


Posted By: compfire
Date Posted: 26 Jul 2011 at 8:17pm

After reading through all these I have come to the following concussion.  When the new version of Aurora (v2.0) is released it is geared toward DMX protocol.  In order to use my 25+ D-Light controllers & firefli with the new software (in DMX mode), I will have to buy new chips for all the controllers and a D-light DMX adapter.  Using my controllers (not in DMX mode, but in the D-Light protocol) it will work, but WON'T fix any of the sticking channel problems or be compatible with the D-light ACx16 v1.19 firmware?  Am I correct with this understanding?



-------------



Posted By: BigDPS
Date Posted: 27 Jul 2011 at 10:25am
I think this sums it up.

-------------
http://www.aurorashow.com/">


Posted By: tonyjmartin
Date Posted: 27 Jul 2011 at 2:46pm
Originally posted by compfire

I will have to buy new chips for all the controllers and a D-light DMX adapter.

You will need to buy an Ethernet to DMX adapter.  Prices and current/future models can be found in earlier posts.



-------------
Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson


Posted By: TheQueb
Date Posted: 30 Aug 2011 at 9:32am
why not just delete the spam posts so they don't show up to the rest of us as new posts?

-------------
80 D-Light-ful Channels
http://www.SoutheastTexasLights.com - Southeast Texas Lights
http://www.frappr.com/dlight - D-Light Users


Posted By: ChrisL1976
Date Posted: 30 Aug 2011 at 10:36am
Originally posted by TheQueb

why not just delete the spam posts so they don't show up to the rest of us as new posts?


Spam post???...what spam post?  Wink


-------------
Chris

www.lightsonsixth.com



Print Page | Close Window

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.06 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2007 Web Wiz - http://www.webwizguide.com