Max-Paul Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 Dan thanks for the update and answering my question. Sounds like heading in a direction that will support the direction in decoration many of us are going. Now hopefully the cost of Pixels will come down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gmac Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 Dan thanks for the update and answering my question. Sounds like heading in a direction that will support the direction in decoration many of us are going. Now hopefully the cost of Pixels will come down.Not to be rude....... but Dan is investing a bazillion dollars in R&D on S3 and now you want him to lower prices on his pixels?..........Give the man a break Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
misterlights Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 Wow this is great news. But I am curious too, is this the first step in getting back to proprietary "LOR Only" Pixel Mode? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jlowe Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 The planned changes seem very well thought out and responsive to what those with large displays are experiencing. I respect the decision to focus first on updating the code base to current tools and environments. That's playing the long game, and I think will pay off., but may be painful and lengthy getting there. The xlights/nutcracker investment in code shows a commitment to really take a huge step forward with pixel effects in LOR software. My only concern (other than seeing a pretty daunting length of tasks), is ensuring the new file format is still open for other programs (such as xlights) to read and save into. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J_Plak Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 Same Hear hoping that the introduction of LORNet doesn't eliminate their support for e1.31. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeffl Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 The new developments seam focused towards pixel use and large channels counts. The decorators that are doing this would both be using E1.31 in most cases and probably rely on the file format being open. Eliminating either of these would alienate the users they plan to build towards. I would assume, as in the past, their new protocol will provide additional benefits when using the LOR suite of products. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alien407 Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 As E1.31 becomes the standard for transporting DMX over IP, the problem for LOR is to continue to talk to their controllers which are RS-485 based. From a business perspective, they have to continue to support their legacy hardware since there is such a large installed base. That being said, from a business perspective, they have to move into the space where the dmx lighting industry is moving or be left behind. The trick is to find or build the bridge. IMHO...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnfish Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 My question is whats it gonna cost! Its fine if it does all these things but if it prices me out of doing my own pixels again (like the superstar licenses does!) I will definitely move on to something else as painful as that may be, I hope that the upgrade cost will be reasonable. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gmac Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 My question is whats it gonna cost! Its fine if it does all these things but if it prices me out of doing my own pixels again (like the superstar licenses does!) I will definitely move on to something else as painful as that may be, I hope that the upgrade cost will be reasonable. JohnI don't feel LOR has ever price gouged us before for there software and they have no reason to start now...........IMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elsa Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 Per the original announcement "The new LORnet will allow for 100,000+ channel ( 30,000+ pixel ) displays. As a result of this new method of representing data, all communications protocols supported by LOR will see benefit."I feel pretty comfortable that lor will continue to support E1.31 , as has been stated above , that would be taking a step back with the software . Lor seems to understand that the large ch counts are the way of the future . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aaron Maue Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 Per the original announcement "The new LORnet will allow for 100,000+ channel ( 30,000+ pixel ) displays. As a result of this new method of representing data, all communications protocols supported by LOR will see benefit."I feel pretty comfortable that lor will continue to support E1.31 , as has been stated above , that would be taking a step back with the software .That's my assumption as well, but thought I'd mention it, as you know what happens when you assume something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elsa Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 Very valid point , but lor is obviously investing a lot of time and money on a redesign . My thinking is they need to sell copies of the software to recoup some of that investment . Dropping e1.31 would obviously keep most of us who use pixels from spending on an upgrade . We would either stay with an older version and use xlights , or switch altogether . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daryl Hurd Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 If LOR is going to use the same method of sending data out like the way Nutcracker/Xlights does currently, there is no worry that it will not be compatible with E1.31.. Remember Nutcracker can run LOR controllers and E1.31 currently... By adopting their method though, it will reduce network traffic quite abit and this is how it will allow them to scale to large pixel count displays. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnfish Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 My reference to the cost is in upgrading SS I think its a crime to charge so much just to add a string or two of pixels and not get the functionality out of SS. I bought the superstar upgrade to run a 2 strings of pixels last year. this year I want to add a mega tree and in order to use superstar it would cost me an additional 300 dollars! I don't know if that is gouging but I certainly cant justify that upgrade cost. I now have to figure out how to use xlights and nutcracker and integrate that with S3 instead of using superstar which I foolishly spent money on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max-Paul Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 Not to be rude....... but Dan is investing a bazillion dollars in R&D on S3 and now you want him to lower prices on his pixels?..........Give the man a break I'm sorry you misunderstood. Like almost anything that is relatively new electronics. After a time the cost / price of said item starts to drop. I was in no way focusing on Dan's products. I was thinking and typing about pixels in general. If anyone else thought otherwise, then sorry it was not my intent. Oh and BTW gmac whats it to you? Do you hold stock in LOR? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donny M. Carter Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 Pixel prices have dropped tremendously from the last two years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitusCarnathan Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 +1 on the e1.31 continued support. And I agree I hope the price on pixels would come down in price, And It would be great if someone could develope a m6 size pixel so it would look like a regular led string. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kzaas Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 I agree Titus a small RGB pixel would be great. I have been trying to find on for a year now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shfr26 Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 I was under the impression that if it was a major upgrade it would be called s4, or am I mistaken or was it a slip of the keyboard by Dan? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iflights Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 I was under the impression that if it was a major upgrade it would be called s4, or am I mistaken or was it a slip of the keyboard by Dan? I don't think the 3 refers to a release/version number, but rather an acronym for Showtime Software Suite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now