LSX or FB3 ?

[colouredmirrorball]

Use curves or presets.
If you really want a freehand method, nag to drlava until he implements it :P

If you're handy with expressions, then sure, you could try to make some kind of a BPM variable. I've never tried it though, but I should. I believe dzodzo tried something out before. Maybe it's better to use spec2 for this so you can select the frequency. Also maybe have the variable increment with each beat and reset after four counts... there's an idea.

Actually...

[Pangolin]

Feature-wise, many users have told me they start with FB3/QS and like it for a little while because it's easy, but quickly hit a limitations wall and are faced with a very expensive upgrade to beyond.

Expensive upgrade to BEYOND? At two SELEMs in a row, every single attendee received an upgrade FOR FREE!!

Also, if anyone thinks QS is limited, please contact me directly. The philisophy of QS is indeed unlimited in many ways. You can add a literally unlimited number of oscillators, modulators and effects in the Abstract Generator. In the Effect Editor, you can add a literally unlimited number of effects, color modulators, modifiers, etc. And on the timeline, there are a literally unlimited number of tracks that can be added, with each track having an unlimited number of effects, etc. As far as I know, LSX and the various LDS derivatives have a limitation in terms of the number of tracks and things that can be on the timeline. So even when it comes to QS I think any appearance of limitations would be merely an illusion, and if a client took time to explore QS, they would find that it really is quite impressive. That's why even many of our professional-level clients have grown to love it.

With LSX, you don't have to start off doing advanced swami-style things, but can start off with simpler QS style things easily

I'm not so sure about that... How long will it take an average user, who hasn't studied the manual, to learn how to do text (instant with QS "QuickText")? How long to learn how to make a five-pointed hot-dot pentagon that rotates slowly (instant with QS "QuickShape")? How long to learn how to turn a variety of bitmap graphics into a laser-projectable graphic (instant with QS "QuickTrace")? How long to learn how to control DMX fixtures and fog machines (instant with QS "QuickDMX")? etc...

I think there is a huge difference between the usability of QS and anything else on the market, and as proof, anyone can download our free demo version here:
http://www.pangolin.com/_Files/Setup_QS2_Ev.exe

The support of ILDA export is a very important feature, and I have to ask Bill, since you are proud of being the 'first' in the field of ILDA export in the old LD2000, now is the perfect time to commit to enabling it in your new software. You cannot make the argument that the software is 'too advanced' for ILDA export, because the very principle of discrete time digital to analog conversion in a DAC is the very basis of the definition of an ILDA file.

Hehe. Who says that this is the basis of how we control lasers? News flash -- IT ISN'T!!

The ILDA format is a "lossy" format. It loses color information like crazy, but that's just the start of things. It loses all user preferences, is not aware of where the user wants to project the image (i.e. the "projection zone"), is not aware of any per-frame optimization settings, etc. And this is just ordinary laser stuff that is done with our software, not to mention data on "faces" (i.e. hidden line removal related information), etc. The original ILDA format was developed around 27 years ago, and was only half-updated once, and there is even confusion about exactly what the ILDA format is, with no less than nine separate documents describing the data format, many of them completely contradictory. Since I left the ILDA Technical Committee Chairmanship, the ILDA format has become a complete mess.

When you export from LD2000, it tends to dumb-down the data, and also loses information, because even LD2000 invented around 13 years ago contains more information in each frame than the ILDA format does. Because of this, we often get complaints about exported data, and why it doesn't look as good, why timing information is lost, etc. Basically a lot of questions and confusion. Any time someone has questions or confusion, it generates phone calls, emails and forum posts which must be answered, and we spend our time explaining why things don't work right, rather than spending our time developing new tools for the community.

Completely setting this aside, we've been very quiet about the way in which we control scanners, and why it is that Pangolin is able to get more out of scanners than anyone else. It's one thing that QS and BEYOND do better than any other software on the market. And we accomplish this by NOT doing what everyone else is doing. Frankly, I think it will be difficult to get QS and BEYOND to run on other people's hardware, even though this is what we are experimenting with right now.

In any event, if someone wants to come to our office, I will show them -- on our advanced test equipment -- why it is that we get better performance out of the scanners, and why it is that software using simple "discrete time" concepts can not. I'm not going to waste my time describing this in a forum post. You have to see it on the scanners and on test equipment to understand it, and believe it!

Speaking of DAC intercompatibility, how's the FB3 SDK coming along? Your users are waiting for it, and I look forward to trying it out, too!

Sure. Well that's one thing that being in the business for 27 years, and having tens of thousands of clients will do for you -- you get a feel for who needs what, and what is important and what is not.

Even before the acquisition of Phoenix, we have amassed around 22,000 clients over the past 27 years. Of those 22,000 clients, only around 100 have used our LD2000 SDK. With this being the case, it is clear that we should invest our time on things that help all of the 22,000, rather than things that will only help 100 out of the 22,000.

Another thing we've learned over the past 27 years, and having put out eight separate generations of hardware, is the need to "serialize access to the hardware". This is one major flaw with sound-card-type software. Any software at any time can send information to the output, resulting in spaghetti-like imagery which, if projected into an audience, could be dangerous.

In the LD2000 series, LD/QM32 and even Amiga, we serialize access through our library, so that only one piece of software can control the hardware at a time.

Our latest idea is to simply allow BEYOND itself to control the access. So people an use the BEYOND.DLL to send frame data through the BEYOND program, which can then control how that data is output to the scanners. Moreover, using this approach BEYOND can even add additional effects and such. It's the smartest way we've ever seen both for our software or anyone else's. And finally, BEYOND now supports three separate generations of hardware (LD2000, FB3 in its various forms, and FB4) and so an external program can use the BEYOND.DLL to communicate laser information to any or all of these hardware types.

The BEYOND.DLL is currently used by the 3D portion of BEYOND and also a new LC-Flash for BEYOND. Anyone interested in using this can write to us directly.

Best regards,

William Benner

[swamidog]

good discussions!

here's a link to my new LSX show:

http://www.photonlexicon.com/forums/...307#post258307

[lulighttec]

Expensive upgrade to BEYOND? At two SELEMs in a row, every single attendee received an upgrade FOR FREE!!

Correction: Every attendee who was listening to your demo and *already had pangolin hardware* received a free copy/upgrade of beyond. I remember; I was in the room, and if I had the hardware, I would have emailed you! As it was, I didn't have the hardware, or the money to buy said hardware, so I didn't email you.

-N

[colouredmirrorball]

Expensive upgrade to BEYOND? At two SELEMs in a row, every single attendee received an upgrade FOR FREE!!

Thanks! How useful for us Europeans! :P

Also, if anyone thinks QS is limited, please contact me directly. The philisophy of QS is indeed unlimited in many ways. You can add a literally unlimited number of oscillators, modulators and effects in the Abstract Generator. In the Effect Editor, you can add a literally unlimited number of effects, color modulators, modifiers, etc. And on the timeline, there are a literally unlimited number of tracks that can be added, with each track having an unlimited number of effects, etc. As far as I know, LSX and the various LDS derivatives have a limitation in terms of the number of tracks and things that can be on the timeline. So even when it comes to QS I think any appearance of limitations would be merely an illusion, and if a client took time to explore QS, they would find that it really is quite impressive. That's why even many of our professional-level clients have grown to love it.

You are still limited by whatever effects/oscillators/modulators etc. the programmer has implemented. I'm sure all effects anyone will ever use are already in QS, but I like creating my own stuff with precisely controlled parameters. That's just me though... I've grown used to that if I want an oscillator to be sin(a+b*cos(tri+c))*atan(sin(d-sqr)+e)+cos(whatever+tri²) then it will be just that... plain and simple, without me having to sort out how to do it in somebody else's user interface.

Sure, the number of timelines in LSX is limited to 130. The maximum I have ever used is 65 (in my bpm counter as in the screenshot above). That was very advanced and I don't see myself reach that number again anytime soon. Even so, you can use a Loop event on all 130 timelines which can store 30 timelines internally. And each of those timelines can store another Loop event, so in fact, the number of timelines is unlimited after all!

I'm not so sure about that... How long will it take an average user, who hasn't studied the manual, to learn how to do text (instant with QS "QuickText")? How long to learn how to make a five-pointed hot-dot pentagon that rotates slowly (instant with QS "QuickShape")? How long to learn how to turn a variety of bitmap graphics into a laser-projectable graphic (instant with QS "QuickTrace")? How long to learn how to control DMX fixtures and fog machines (instant with QS "QuickDMX")? etc...

There is a Fast Laser Text button, which allows you to display text in seconds. The other options take indeed some time to learn, but no one ever claimed LSX was easy to use. I do believe QS is very easy to use (that's what everybody keeps telling me). But once you know how to do it, anything you say is easy to do.
Does the fact that QS is so easy to use justify that it is twice as expensive as LSX? I don't know, but it better does.

Hehe. Who says that this is the basis of how we control lasers? News flash -- IT ISN'T!!

The ILDA format is a "lossy" format. It loses color information like crazy, but that's just the start of things. It loses all user preferences, is not aware of where the user wants to project the image (i.e. the "projection zone"), is not aware of any per-frame optimization settings, etc. And this is just ordinary laser stuff that is done with our software, not to mention data on "faces" (i.e. hidden line removal related information), etc. The original ILDA format was developed around 27 years ago, and was only half-updated once, and there is even confusion about exactly what the ILDA format is, with no less than nine separate documents describing the data format, many of them completely contradictory. Since I left the ILDA Technical Committee Chairmanship, the ILDA format has become a complete mess.

When you export from LD2000, it tends to dumb-down the data, and also loses information, because even LD2000 invented around 13 years ago contains more information in each frame than the ILDA format does. Because of this, we often get complaints about exported data, and why it doesn't look as good, why timing information is lost, etc. Basically a lot of questions and confusion. Any time someone has questions or confusion, it generates phone calls, emails and forum posts which must be answered, and we spend our time explaining why things don't work right, rather than spending our time developing new tools for the community.

Well then... what are you waiting for? Invent a better (open) standard!

[norty303]

Thanks! How useful for us Europeans! :P

I'm reasonably sure there are a number of europeans who have also benefitted in a similar fashion.

[kl79]

Expensive upgrade to BEYOND? At two SELEMs in a row, every single attendee received an upgrade FOR FREE!!

Duh ! it not make me really happy to ear that, I spend my "laser economy" to an upgrade from quick show to beyond... and I'm now the happy user of a buggy program...waiting like some other for an upgrade !
Do you think it's "normal" to start a show with Beyond and finally drop to Quickshow because of the bugs ?

I'm a lsx user for years, I'm happy with the program, I think about something, I know how to do it.
In beyond, I'm more confused for now, certainly because it's new for me. And let's hope the V2 may arrange things as some features are missing for me. (or may be lsx is in advance ??)

So giving an answer to lulighttec is not easy, all is about compromise I think...

[laserLips]

I'm reasonably sure there are a number of europeans who have also benefitted in a similar fashion.

Did you get one? Was the FB3 enough for the upgrade? Does BEYOND work on the FB3? Maybe I should look closer at this. So if I want BEYOND all I need to do it buy QuickShow and wait for SELEM? :-p

You are still limited by whatever effects/oscillators/modulators etc. the programmer has implemented. I'm sure all effects anyone will ever use are already in QS, but I like creating my own stuff with precisely controlled parameters. That's just me though... I've grown used to that if I want an oscillator to be sin(a+b*cos(tri+c))*atan(sin(d-sqr)+e)+cos(whatever+tri²) then it will be just that... plain and simple, without me having to sort out how to do it in somebody else's user interface.

This will eventually frustrate me with QuickShow. I'll like the ability to be the master in LSX, having that granularity of control. Starting from scratch. That's how I like to do things.

I'm sure they both excel in different ways. I'm daring to say that QuickShow's live performace Que tool might be better than LSX, but without using LSX I can't really say.

QuickShow is powerful. When I had a version of what ever I had, I can't remember, liveQuick was it? Yeah it was just the que tool (and paint). On top of that it came with LA Studio. The abstract tool was the best thing, which I could get to from there and from LiveQuick so I'm not sure who made that. I've played with the demo of QuickShow, yes it's awesome and for loads of people I would recommend it. But this thread is about what I want, and it's been interesting to read what people have said.

I will have quality time with the software and be able to take advantage of it's abilities.

I'm sure this will now go BEYOND my purposes and you lot can fight it out. But I'm going with Laser Sex (LSX), based on budget and requirements. If I get rich enough to spoil myself to have both products, I will.

Cheers all so far.

[norty303]

Does BEYOND work on the FB3?

It has done, right from the start afaik. In fact, looking at the people with issues on the forum, its the QM board that people report bugs with.

Was the FB3 enough for the upgrade?

Not sure what you mean by 'enough'. Yes, you can upgrade to Beyond with 'just' an FB3.

[MIIKKKLLLL]

At two SELEMs in a row, every single attendee received an upgrade FOR FREE!!

I'm not really happy to hear that too as that was a $575 gift, an amount I could have saved up for something else

Or $550, as some other customers had it for that amount... (does it depend on the client's head?)