I love LOR...but

[-klb-]

Don wrote:

KarlSmith wrote:

Correct me if I'm wrong.
Using a second TRACK I can lay out my channels order based on position in my yard. So a sweep from yard left to yard right will look like a diagonal in sequence editor instead of a mess. And this will NOT mess up whats above in track 1.

Yes. Make sure you _copy_ the channel to a new track. Do not try to re-create the channel manually. Right-Click/Copy Channel will preserve internal workings of the file.

I highly recommend the "duplicate track" feature in the edit menu. It really beats copying each channel one by one. And I love that they get the ability to directly mess with a copy of your config file. When you get to the neighborhood of 1,000 channels, making new tracks with a spreadsheet and text editor is the way to go.

[NoLor]

Don wrote:

Without going to look ... off the top of my head I'd say they are in the help file. (F1 in sequence editor.)

And, just to play devils advocate, should LOR drop the price of the software and then offer refunds to those who had no choice but to pay full price? Those of us who've been at this since be S2 came out, had to pay full price. Heck, I think our controllers cost more then to.

Yes, it gives some people a bad impression, nobody here here can say anything that will immediately change ones mind. The software, though, is one of the lowest overall costs involved with this hobby. You buy 10 of the PC-CTB16PC-COMPLETE at full price, it's going to set you back $2,000. The software ends up being roughly 6% of that.

I guess I'm not quite sure how your Devil's Advocate statement fits into this. Money spent is Money spent.

Another annoying artificial limitation I just discovered, Show On Demand is only available in the Basic + version. Again, another feature that took almost 0 amount of effort to code, yet an important feature restricted simply to make you pay more.

I figured out I could simulate startup/shutdown simply by scheduling them to run right before/after the main show.

[-klb-]

To VirtXmas: Do you have a list of companies that you don't like, because their pricing model is based on a marketing plan, rather than development costs? Are you sure that the basic package, or even all the packages are not sold at a loss, to promote hardware sales?

I don't know that I would consider startup and shutdown to be all that basic a requirement. I went through 2 years of the city show without them, and only added them because of some requirements relating to triggers. I still don't use them at home.

As for the the pricing, I know at least one user who elected to use this software instead of a $1,500 DMX sequencing package that he already owned, for a several thousand channel display. The controllers all speak DMX, so you could choose any DMX sequencing package you like.

[Greg Young]

VirualXmas:

Assuming you took the time to review what the different options available for the LOR software package were before you purchased them, I would expect you were aware up front of what you were getting (I am referring to the channel limitations, etc, not the actual software operation), so why the beef now?

Perhaps you may want to look at some of the DIY products out there, including software like Vixen, which are certainly less expensive, and something you might be able to modify code on, assuming you have programming skills.

LOR, as do most other decent software packages, contains multiple features that require a learning curve, which will entail certainly more than just a few days to master.

Give yourself a little time, and I think much of your frustration will be gone....

Greg

[taybrynn]

OP, I have to say that I agree 100% with your sentiments about organizing the channels. Going from 67 to 160 and now 256 channels ... I'm finding the organization, or re-organization to be quite a task. LIke you, I was trying to move everything around and it basically breaks all our old sequences by doing that in the first (base) track. Tonight, I decided to stop that insanity and get back on track by taking the advice presented here.000

I do think that currently that for larger displays, you really must use the track and then re-org there approach explained above.

If you are a smaller display and/or don't have too many songs already ... then get a decent base configuration in place.

I really wish there were more tools in the software to make even that (rearranging) task easier.

Like multi-channel select ... grab a whole range of stuff, then copy and paste in one. Currently its drag and drop insanity ... and drag all the items 3 times to get them from the bottom up to the correct spot.

Are there such options already in the latest version of the software? I'm afraid to try it, since I've been very stable with last years version (2.7.6) and hate to get burned by switching right before showtime.

[iresq]

Virtual,

I understand some of your frustrations with the software. I doubt that there is anyone were who would say it's perfect. It's OK to be critical and offer suggestions to move the development forward. Saying that, your tone comes across harsh. You appear to be intelligent and speak from experience. Prior to your purchase, did you not study all the different control options on the market? There are several companies the produce controllers and software and there is a huge DIY universe that even has FREE software! Did you not look at the different licensing options?

It's kind of like moving next to an airport then complaining about the noise.

In most products, price points have nothing to do with production costs. Indeed, adding features costs little. By charging more for advanced products, one can keep the costs lower on the basic. (Supply/demand/elasticity - econ 101)

I wish Dan all the profits he can earn.

[NoLor]

Greg Young wrote:

VirualXmas:

Assuming you took the time to review what the different options available for the LOR software package were before you purchased them, I would expect you were aware up front of what you were getting (I am referring to the channel limitations, etc, not the actual software operation), so why the beef now?

Perhaps you may want to look at some of the DIY products out there, including software like Vixen, which are certainly less expensive, and something you might be able to modify code on, assuming you have programming skills.

LOR, as do most other decent software packages, contains multiple features that require a learning curve, which will entail certainly more than just a few days to master.

Give yourself a little time, and I think much of your frustration will be gone....

Greg

Hi Greg,

I'm sure at one time or another, everyone was a LOR Newbie. Did you completely understand every option in the software licensing and what it did and didn't do for you, until after you purchased it, did some sequencing, and tried to use it in a show?

I understand LOR requires a learning curve, everything does, but I do have quite a bit of extensive experience with MP3 and video editing software (ie, SoundForge and Adobe Premiere) and all of them are very intuitive. Even the cheap/free mp3 software you get with your CD Burner/sound card is more intuitive than LOR, is all I'm saying.

For example, open up any word software, even WordPad, type something out. Now select it. Now go and choose a different font(effect). What happens? The selection changes. LOR doesn't do that. It makes you do something else. Every other piece of editing software, whether it be a word processor, sound editor, video editor, etc, works on the same basic principles. Everyone, except LOR that is.

The suggestions I made in regards to improvements are utterly trivial to code. They are the way they are due to lack of experience or poor planning on the part of the LOR coders. But that doesn't mean they can't make those changes now.

I'm sure people who use LOR extensively have gotten used to the "LOR" method, and perhaps don't think of it as any big deal. But did those defending LOR ever stop to think that there might actually be better ways?

Thanks for the tip on Vixen, I'll look into it. But I'm guessing other packages are not compatible with the LOR sequence file format, but I'll definitely look.

[NoLor]

iresq wrote:

Virtual,

I understand some of your frustrations with the software. I doubt that there is anyone were who would say it's perfect. It's OK to be critical and offer suggestions to move the development forward. Saying that, your tone comes across harsh. You appear to be intelligent and speak from experience. Prior to your purchase, did you not study all the different control options on the market? There are several companies the produce controllers and software and there is a huge DIY universe that even has FREE software! Did you not look at the different licensing options?

It's kind of like moving next to an airport then complaining about the noise.

In most products, price points have nothing to do with production costs. Indeed, adding features costs little. By charging more for advanced products, one can keep the costs lower on the basic. (Supply/demand/elasticity - econ 101)

I wish Dan all the profits he can earn.

Was I frustrated? Yes, of course. Remember from my first post in this thread that I wasn't able to use the software and hardware that I purchased all weekend because the licensing server was down. This is a situation a company shouldn't be putting their customers in, and doesn't need to be putting their customers in.

Their basic software does anyone little good without their hardware. So why have a license key for the basic version at all? At the very least, other software packages give you a 7-28 day grace period of full functionality before requiring registration.

It's not like moving next to an airport at all. I can stand next to an airport and hear what's going on without having to make a purchase or enter a license key.

[rstately]

I think everthing you were wanting to do in the sequence editor, already exists.

the posts following yours have the answers.

sorry about your problems getting started, but as far as the price of the software?

I spend more than 140.00 on zipties every year! (I mean how much did adobe premiere cost?)

I think the levels allow someone to pay 50.00, try it with controlers, and if they don't like it, they can sell it on e-bay and maybe even get more than they paid for it!

I think you should send your idea's to wishlist@lightorama.com

but take some time to really learn the keyboard short cuts.

Good luck with everything!

[PaulXmas]

VirtualXmas wrote:

PaulXmas wrote:

Then they should charge EVERYONE for a advanced version of the software?

You bought the $140 version. I am glad they gave me a cheaper option.

I think the software is priced fairly and don't think it should change. Last year I had the basic Plus and this year I gladly paid for the upgrade.

I for one think the software is second ot none.

Thank you for taking the time to carefully digest my post before replying. :?

I never said, or implied any of that.

I'll take it you don't know much about software development.

Some features that they restrict are extremely easy to implement. For example, the startup and shutdown tasks probably took 60-120 minutes to code, yet, it's an "advanced" feature.

It costs the same amount to develop the software whether or not you run 1, 10,100, or even 100 million channels. The channel restriction is completely artificial, designed simply to get you to part with more of your cash.

I have no issues with paying more money for features that actually provide significant value, and where difficult to develop and code, such as the Beat Detector likely was. But completely artificial limitations such as the channel limitation and the start/stop tasks that cost virtually nothing to develop, yet seriously impede the usability of the hardware, simply to get you to pay more.

As for the software being second to none, it has some serious user interface usability issues that could be simply fixed. It lacks some basic user interface design that is on even the cheapest (ie included for free with many sound cards) MP3 editing software.

Umm sounds like someone got up on the wrong side of the bed this month!

No one is forcing you to use the software that is missing the features that are easy to implement (for you).

You are trying to give us the impression that you know more about coding than LOR so then go for it!

Dan should close this thread before things get out of hand.

[NoLor]

PaulXmas wrote:

Dan should close this thread before things get out of hand.

Why? Because someone has a different opinion then yours, it shouldn't be heard?

[JBullard]

VirtualXmas wrote:

I understand LOR requires a learning curve, everything does, but I do have quite a bit of extensive experience with MP3 and video editing software (ie, SoundForge and Adobe Premiere) and all of them are very intuitive. Even the cheap/free mp3 software you get with your CD Burner/sound card is more intuitive than LOR, is all I'm saying.

For example, open up any word software, even WordPad, type something out. Now select it. Now go and choose a different font(effect). What happens? The selection changes. LOR doesn't do that. It makes you do something else. Every other piece of editing software, whether it be a word processor, sound editor, video editor, etc, works on the same basic principles. Everyone, except LOR that is.

The suggestions I made in regards to improvements are utterly trivial to code. They are the way they are due to lack of experience or poor planning on the part of the LOR coders. But that doesn't mean they can't make those changes now.

If you haven't yet, then I encourage you to try the various lighting control software .

Such as Spectrum, Aurora, Animated Lighting, Vixen, Light Show Pro, or Prancer. Some of these packages claim to be compatible with LOR Hardware.

In addition to LOR, I have 3 of the software packages I listed above. Have really tried to use them, have trouble understanding all of the hoops they force you to jump through to use them that is so simple to do with LOR software.

Trying to compare lighting control software with a word processor, or music or video editing software is rediculous. Completely different things.

Try some of the lighting control software packages that I listed above, and you will see how much more easy LOR is to use then they are, (imho). You might like them better, if so great! Use them.

The developers of Spectrum ceased all support for their software Sept 2008.

Aurora announced on August 30 2010 that they have ceased support for their software. It was priced at $99 and they only sold 3 copies from Jan 2010 to May 2010. Read their official announcement here

Annimated Lighting will only work with their hardware, and many AL users have been complaining about the lack of software updates and big fixes.

Vixen Ver 2.1 was released Jan 2009. Vixen ver 2.5 was released as a Beta version mid 2009. As I understand it, it is still classified as Beta software and the programmer does not support it. This month it was announced that a possible 3.0 version of Vixen might be released some time next year, however coding for it has not begun yet.

Light Show Pro has been seeing some activity among some users, I bought it (I think the current price is $149), but dang if I can figure it out.

The development of Prancer was annouced in August 2010. However, it would not contain any actual hardware controlling capability. It was to be a sequencing tool only, you would have to import its output files into a different (you supply) software package to actually control the hardware. Price was not announced. The programmer was looking for something for his own use for his own lighting display, but I saw a post from him on another forum that he was quitting the whole holiday lighting hobby. His software was still in Alpha1 status, and on Oct 22 he announced that an Alpha2 version would be released Nov 1. To my knowlege, it didn't happen, and since he stated he was quitting even his own personal light display, it may now be dead. On November 16 he stated he would be selling all of his lighting control hardware.

So this is a summary of the under $1000 lighting control software that I am aware of.

Take your choice! This is kind of software is very difficult to implement and as many software companies have found out, it is too expensive for them to maintain the staff of programmers to keep the software relevant to the current and fast changing state of lighting hardware development.

LOR is different, very active programming staff.

In 2007 I was using LOR Ver 1.1.x

Ver 2.1.x released 12-12-08

Ver 2.3.x released 6-16-09

Ver 2.4.x released 9-14-09

Ver 2.5.x released 10-16-09

Ver 2.6.x released 11-04-09

Ver 2.7.x released 2-26-10

Ver 2.8.x released 8-24-10
Ver 2.8.12 released 10-01-10

Ver 2.9.x ??? Maybe soon??

Ver 3.0.x ??? Maybe next year ???? Just guessing.

[ChuckHutchings]

Maybe Dan should hire VX to write the next version of the software. That should solve everything.

[NoLor]

JBullard wrote:

Trying to compare lighting control software with a word processor, or music or video editing software is rediculous. Completely different things.

No, it's not. It's basic data manipulation. Sorry you can't see that.

[mnkyboy]

with all due respect to the OP,

with thousands of us that use S2, and yes there are a few little items that does bug us, we understand it's not perfect..and the thousands of vantastic lights shows that will be turning on the next few nights using s2,

maybe this should be the sequencing tool you would be more comfortable with:

[NoLor]

ChuckHutchings wrote:

Maybe Dan should hire VX to write the next version of the software. That should solve everything.

Can't contribute anything more than a personal attack, huh?

Let me ask you this, Chuck. What would happen if LOR went out of business?

What would you do at that point when (not if, when) you needed to re-install the LOR software and the mothership no longer responded?

I can just imagine the whining over at PC now, and I'll bet you'll be the first in line.

"OMG! My million channels of LOR have gone dead, what will I do now!?!?"

I apologize if I'm not genuflecting on the Altar of LOR as I apparently should be. LOR is just a company here to make money, not to be a religion. The minute they are no longer making money, they will move on to something else, and your thousands of dollars of LOR hardware will be nothing more than scrap metal, all because you can't reinstall a $100 piece of software.

[rstately]

VirtualXmas,
Where do you expect this thread to go?
If you want help, this is not the way...
If you want change, this is not the way...
If there is better software/hardware out there, show us?

[displaysinmotion_will]

more than likely wanting to get something for nothing, Im placing my money on the fact that if he rants enough and makes a big stink about things he'll get what he wants without having to pay for it. his whole issue is the tiered pricing of the software and he doesnt agree that it should cost "extra" for features he says takes minimal time to create in the code. maybe he thinks they'll give him what he wants so he will stop complaining.

[displaysinmotion_will]

VirtualXmas wrote:
The suggestions I made in regards to improvements are utterly trivial to code. They are the way they are due to lack of experience or poor planning on the part of the LOR coders. But that doesn't mean they can't make those changes now.

the sole reason for lor to go to a licensed software product is simply to prevent endless copies being distrubuted freely among users without paying for it.

before s2 lor1 was being distributed among us like pirated music. if you are a programmer like you state you are then you would appreciate the need to protect your investment wouldnt you? would you spend years (and im not lying when dan has spent years perfecting his software) developing a program and not get a return on your investment because it was being shared like it was going out of style?

[rwertz]

mnkyboy wrote:

with all due respect to the OP,

with thousands of us that use S2, and yes there are a few little items that does bug us, we understand it's not perfect..and the thousands of vantastic lights shows that will be turning on the next few nights using s2,

maybe this should be the sequencing tool you would be more comfortable with:

I don't think you meant that towards the OP. The Original Poster (Amie) hasn't replied to this thread since it was hijacked by VX's rant