Comments on: Is Something Wrong With U and I?

By: Lampie The Clown

Lampie The Clown — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 16:25:02 +0000

François F.B, I understand your point, and agree that taking a piece of software designed for one thing and adapting it to something else can be irritating for the end user. In this case however, I think it’s the smart way to go. The first reason is redundant software and hardware, known more commonly as, “Where ya gonna find a part to fix it when it breaks?
. I was doing a show with a Virtuoso a few years back, and the hard drive died an hour before doors. The desk wouldn’t even boot. I had the Virtuoso software on my Mac laptop, so I opened up the desk, plugged my laptop into it via Firewire, and ran the show off my laptop. I don’t mean a virtual set of buttons and faders on my computer screen, it was real. I had full use of every encoder, every button, and every fader on the real desk. My show file was loaded, with the preset focuses I’d done earlier that day, and I still had a half hour to kill before house to black. When a redundant system saves you bacon that close to curtain, you forget all about the graphics making you feel like an accountant.
You listed computer tasks that you feel are out of place on a lighting desk, but I disagree. Every time you have to reach for your laptop while you are sitting behind the lighting desk, the desk is showing how far behind the curve it is. Here are my thoughts on the things you listed..
Office work: I think having a copy of Lightwright on the desk for managing the patch, or printing out a magic sheet would be a nice addition. You know those little bits of software that figure out what dipswitch setting you need to address an old scroller? Why doesn’t the desk have it built in? When the band changes the set list five minutes before houselights, wouldn’t it be great if the tour manager could send the changes right to the lighting desk via wireless networking or even e-mail?
Internet: Ever get a desk that didn’t have the correct profile for a light you were using? Being able to download it directly into the desk would save time and headaches. Networking between desks, and instant messaging between operators is already a feature in some of today’s desks. Having a problem with the desk? Tech support could use screen sharing to figure out a solution, and update the firmware/software on the spot. Need a manual for that old obscure light that only survived in one place (today’s venue)? Maybe you want to update your Facebook page during the 17 minute harp solo, or update your on-line resume after 15 minutes of it? How about ordering a pizza for those late night programming sessions. It doesn’t matter where you are, internet is a handy thing.
Video: One word. Convergence.
Design: If it had Vectorworks, Lightwright, and the internet (yes, still useful) the desk would be the perfect place. My home computer doesn’t have 3 large flat screens to spread out tool pallets and windows in, or a virtual 3-D stage coming out of one of the video cards, or real lights to look at when I’m trying to decide on a color, position, or gobo. Sign me up.
Gaming: The original Artisan desk had Asteroids on it twenty years ago, and it wasn’t a computer OS. It was a proprietary OS made for controlling Vari*lites. Today, the Grand MA has Space Invaders. Somebody out there must think games are cool.
Yes, today’s desks are fairly “mono-targeted”, but with all the different useful directions a computer operating system offers, they can evolve into a much more productive tool.
What they WILL evolve into may or may not use that potential, but the “off the shelf” OS will remain anyway. It’s cheaper and less headache to buy an OS off the shelf, than to write one from scratch. Vari*lite and LSD both had a hard time learning this. Both of them spent years and went broke, trying to invent what is essentially a DL-3. High End, on the other hand, figured it out quick. The projector industry already spends billions a year on R&D to make their projectors brighter, smaller and cheaper than the competition. Instead of going broke trying to re-invent the projector, they built a moving head with a slot in the back that will accept whatever projector is brightest.
To put it another way, “the Russians used a pencil”. Operating Systems are no different than projectors or pencils in this respect.

By: François F.B.

François F.B. — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 02:54:10 +0000

I’m from the “lazy” generation, in my early twenties and an technology freak (computers hard/soft, hand devices, internet, …) and I found myself to be quite alone on my side : i hate windows/mac os/linux/… based consoles’ interfaces.

I’ve played with both “worlds” consoles (expresses, series 200-300-520, GrandMa, Hogs, Vista) and I just can’t get to love Os’ inspired interfaces.

In my beliefs, this kind of interfaces are strickly reserved to computers. They are multiples tasked machines (office work, internet, video, design, gaming, etc.); Lignting consoles are, compared to that, quite mono-targeted. I therefore believe that an optimised interface is not a questionnable option but an utter must! Yes it might be longer to get used to such an interface, but it is possible to push the integration way furter and to leave behind, elements (start menu, right click menu, …), yet well known, but not adapted to our kind of business.

I’d take the exemple of the iPhone; Apple developed a specific interface for this device, they did not only scale down MacOs interface. They optimised it for the kind of input device, hardware AND usage it was intended for. Yes it took a time for users to get used to it, but multi-touch gestures, for instance, are way more powerful and intuitive with this specific interface than if it had been a computer OS’ based one. Isn’t it?

I can’t bear Jands’ Vista interface, mind you I love many thing from this console: **timeline** But I hate to be reduce to use a grey, Windows 95 looking interface with tiny tabs just as if it was an excel document to be able to get to this powerful tool. Hey, I’m not an accountant!

Are you?

My two cents,

François
P.S. Sorry for my bad english…

By: Jimmy Thew

Jimmy Thew — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 19:00:47 +0000

Hey rob.
Got to say i like the way things are going in lighting desks. For me the layout seems standard, it’s either got lots of buttons or a fancy interface and very few buttons.
I’m a fan of buttons for the hands on approach and the ease of tweeking things. Then again i’ve had little experience with the other style of desks (i wouldnt know where to start)
The thing that has really impressed me tho recently is the jands vista and as said above its lazyness. with it being windows based i’ve found it to be easy to get used to and to be fair i would like to see more take this approach on.
Now only if we could afford to buy one.

By: Lampie The Clown

Lampie The Clown — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 01:27:19 +0000

When I was younger, and a moving light was a leko on a stick, I spent quite a bit of time behind both the Avo QM-500 and the Celco Gold. Whenever I ran a Celco, I wished it had both bump and solo buttons, like the Avo.
Having to flip the switch from bump to solo, and only having use of one or the other at any given time, saved Celco money on buttons I guess, or maybe it made the desk look cleaner in the advertising, but I always felt the ADD/SOLO switch was for their benefit, not the operator’s. At the price they were charging for a desk it seemed to be an odd design philosophy. P&G’s everywhere, but sorry, the budget for buttons is tapped out? It never made sense to me.

Today’s manufacturers are, in my opinion, making the same mistake. When I programmed on the Artisan & Virtuoso desks I really liked the obvious usefulness of the “century panel” and having dedicated encoders for the different attributes. With today’s desks you get software driven touch screens and 3 or 4 encoders at most, even though the number of attributes has increased.

When I look at how much these lap-tops with faders cost, it makes me think of the Celco, and how far the bean counters have come in 25 years. In another 10 years you’ll get a single button, and a touch screen. It will look like an iPhone, and cost a quarter million. Gee, I can’t wait.

By: Alex O'Donnell

Alex O'Donnell — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 22:40:09 +0000

I too have come to DMX lighting consoles from outside the industry. We are making some networked lighting controllers, and have a DMX prototype. Trying to drive the system is quite a pain.

We tried a couple of low end consoles (the $200 range) and find they are great for direct control, but for schedules lighting, none had an intuitive way of saving steps in a show.

We tried software, but it used a lot of jargon, and there was a lot of system set up before we could start to compose (Enttec – but I do have faith in their products).

Surprisingly the “Light-o-Rama” came closest to what I “expected”. It provides time lines per channel/light/slot and gives a graphic representation.

I always find replacing slider, knobs and dials with software may have the right look, but the wrong feel. I like the tactile feedback.

I think the best solution would need a hardware software solution, but aren’t they all the very expensive top end systems. I’d still be concerned they managed to translate the feel properly, even if they got the look perfect.

By: Hans

Hans — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 14:59:04 +0000

Being a newcomer to DMX lighting control hard- and software but a veteran in IT and PC standards, I can asure you that the quality of UI and useability in most of the socalled “defacto” standard ligthing control systems is poor.

Most systems are very hard to learn, and having a long background in standard UI for the PC doesn’t help you much. Think about, if every car manufacturer made their own type of steering wheel, some round, some square, some triangular and their own brakes, some operated with the left foot, some with the right and some with the hands. Confusing – ehh. And hard to use what you learn in one car for driving another. That’s how I feel. The current DMX lighting control software packages (at least the 5-6 I have worked with) sucks. Sorry guys, but that’s how I see it…

By: Dimitris

Dimitris — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 16:27:28 +0000

I’ve got to admit that i did not like the “application” in the first place, as well.

But knowing the power that lies behind it, with all the cues, the timing and the FX engine, i persuaded myself that this is a console i want to learn.

So, bad interface or not, i am after the console and what i can do with it.

I hope the tutorials shall continue, right?

By: Richard B.

Richard B. — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 16:12:08 +0000

What’s wrong with the Hog 2 UI? Clear, simple, no distractions, to the point.

Still beats any UI made in the 15 years since for what it does (ok video and LED’s are a pain on it, but for moving lights and generics – perfect).

By: Greg Persinger

Greg Persinger — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 13:52:55 +0000

This is why I like the Jands Vista. Great interface and it works the way I think.

The Cham Sys reminds my too much of a Hog 2.

By: JamesD

JamesD — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 13:01:33 +0000

Thanks for the useful info. It’s so interesting