Pangolin product request

[masterpj]

How about replacing hundreds of meters of expensive and heavy ILDA cable with only one ethernet cable... Ok, this one would be solved by the FB3.net (or any concurrent .net solution, which exists).
Now, how about having a realtime deported hardware, which will unlikely crash nor being influed by anything on the computer while doing a show...

Exactly sbk you seemed to get the point of QM and why it was build this way.
The QM does not need upgrade as processing is being shifted to the software indeed, the memory does not need upgrading either since no show fills up it's entire memory... else this show would: 1. be badly optimized and designed
2. be too long and too boring
3. be too heavy on your scanners.

The QM.Net is all what is needed, it's also small enough FB3 is smaller I agree, but just one thing: Why would a company ever degrade it's value to a less expensive controller and ditch their most attention payed controller? The FB3 is sold at a lower value for a reason, shifting over all the expensive frames and stuff were huge amounts of money was spend for to the FB3 would certainly give an not so pleasant after effect now would it?

I'm not speaking about what is fair or nice to hear or not, but I'm trying to speak from a perspective what sounds quite logical to me.

I certainly do think beyond will be an upgrade that will benefit quickshow users though.
Honestly all upgrades to future pangolin products are free, since this is no upgrade and a new range of software it's kind of fair isn't it?
development is an expensive thing, especially if you are doing so from a lot of different directions and categories.

again: thought pangolin was expensive? open up the pricelist of lobo lasersystems for example and I'm certain you will correct that sentence.

Let's just look forward to BEYOND and see what the product has to offer for all pangolin users ok?

[White-Light]

I would say that would be extremely unlikely. If Beyond is indeed FB3 compatible, then there would be no reason to buy QM.net hardware, that I can see, for most scenarios.

I don't forsee a FB3.net anytime soon.

The nearest competitior with advanced .net hardware, is arguably a long way behind QS in terms of overall features and price, so why would there be an necessity to compete on hardware? Some may prefer the simplicty of that competitor but equally many many people, looking at recent sales of QS post v2.0 launch, prefer the advanced features of QS 2.0, so each has their own market. There's no real need for Pangolin to trade tit for tat over hardware specs when each product has their own audience, especially if Beyond takes features and performance to an even higher level on the Fb3.

Also as Norty says, Pangolin might be shooting themselves in the foot if a FB3.net came out with regards to their higher end hardware.

Although saying that, I would expect the dedicated hardware for Beyond to be much more capable than the FB3. How much more capable, we'll have to see as that in turn also depends on Beyonds capabilities and we're not going to know any of this until release.

[masterpj]

2 things that will never render QM and QM.net useless
(there are likely more things to name here)
- LC-max
- LC-flash

Seriously, Quickshow is good but QM is certainly far from outdated =)
Perhaps the hardware is very old as in design but it's software has been progressing constantly, so in that matter of speaking not outdated..

And second, even when other products have .net feature, they still lack many software which the QM range does have, so certainly not even close to an hamstring.
Lets also not forget that the FB3 package with quickshow has also been an attractive purchase with all it's current features, so why would BEYOND suddenly be a hamstring even when having improvements and enhancements?
Lets not forget the thing that BEYOND will be the salvation of many quickshow users having problems with that so called timeline issue, that I heard a few times, certainly a very VERY big plus.

Anyway it's time for me to go to bed once again.
Have to get up earlier as tomorrow *well today since it's 0:18 AM* it's my brothers birthday

[norty303]

How about replacing hundreds of meters of expensive and heavy ILDA cable with only one ethernet cable...

A £50 USB server will do that for FB3.



I guess I'm overlooking a good number of features of QM, because I have no need for them. I use Pangolin for live, busked shows, nothing pre-programmed or graphics/animation heavy.

If the live performance part of Beyond is
1. compatible with FB3 and
2. an improvement/comparable/newer featured than LivePro
then I'll be a happy bunny.

I guess we just wait for the roadmap, and see what is available for what, when, and how much.

Although saying that, I would expect the dedicated hardware for Beyond to be much more capable than the FB3.

If there is to be dedicated hardware for Beyond, and Pangolin are currently pushing QM sales with Beyond, then I'd be seriously pissed off if I was just buying into the product. But I don't think thats necessarily the case.

[laser_freak]

Although saying that, I would expect the dedicated hardware for Beyond to be much more capable than the FB3. How much more capable, we'll have to see as that in turn also depends on Beyonds capabilities and we're not going to know any of this until release.

I thought Pangolin was only releasing Beyond, and not any additional hardware, since Beyond is designed to work with all of their current hardware.

[Lased]

I think you can't compare your nissan to this

Sure I can. It's precisely the same scenario. New technology comes out => it's better than the previous generation => previous owners feel a bit of buyer's remorse.. Exactly the same as your description of how QM owners would feel if the QM was declared obsolete and replaced with a more advanced option. In terms of digital hardware devices and their construction, the QM has been obsolete for years.. It's only because this is a tiny niche market that they exist at all I think, and it's that reason that some of the people and products behind laser show programming can remain years behind the rest of the world in terms of development. Again, that is not necessarily a bad thing, my only point in piping up was to point out that to me QMs, among other things, are an anomoly in the technological world.

[White-Light]

I thought .... Beyond is designed to work with all of their current hardware.

I said dedicated hardware. I didn't say anything about a change of hardware. LD hardware is dedicated to LD and I expect it will be dedicated to Beyond in the same way. I know nothing of LD's hardware capabilities with LD nevermind Beyond so whether or not Beyond can utilise the boards better is something we'll have to wait on. Either way, we already know it has greater performance than the Fb3.

[flecom]

Now, how about having a realtime deported hardware, which will unlikely crash nor being influed by anything on the computer while doing a show...

beyond and livepro use the QM as a frame buffer so that argument does not really apply that often

2 things that will never render QM and QM.net useless
(there are likely more things to name here)
- LC-max
- LC-flash

ugh, have you used LC-Flash? it only works with flash files exported in like, flash 4... which 99% of the stuff I try and export from Flash CS4 won't even let me export to flash 4... and if I just export it as CS4 LC-Flash eats itself

[masterpj]

Lc-flash works with adobe flash 6 files or latest too, as long as you avoid maxscript or weird shading.

I tried LC-flash and managed to make a graphics show with it.
Don't prefer LC-flash but hey it works.

LC-max is the way to go for me

For people that indeed do not prefer making their own graphics or premade shows to often, fb3 is fit.

But for the people out there (like me) QM is heaven

[flecom]

ya but beyond is basically 3dstudio max laser... and it seems like its going to be on QB and FB interfaces..

I have had little luck with LC-Flash... and LC-max + 3d studio max is big $$$... no thanks