Rick Ouellet Posted April 18, 2009 Share Posted April 18, 2009 Hello,Does anyone on this forum use Lightshow Pro as their programming software? Looks nice but I'm looking for some feedback.Rick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wbottomley Posted April 18, 2009 Share Posted April 18, 2009 Rick, not to be bad or mean, but, I would ask that question in LightShowPro's forum vs. Light-O-Rama's.Most people here (99.9%) use LOR as their programming software.It makes technical support much easier if all software and hardware are all the same. Other's have mixed-matched software and hardware with great success but I would stay with one company for all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyjmartin Posted April 18, 2009 Share Posted April 18, 2009 Rick Ouellet wrote: Does anyone on this forum use Lightshow Pro as their programming software? Looks nice but I'm looking for some feedback.ThenMountainwxman wrote: Rick, not to be bad or mean, but, I would ask that question in LightShowPro's forum vs. Light-O-Rama's.Yes, except that the question was directed to "anyone on this forum" that uses the software.Mountainwxman wrote: Most people here (99.9%) use LOR as their programming software.99.9% ? I really doubt that.Mountainwxman wrote: It makes technical support much easier if all software and hardware are all the same. Other's have mixed-matched software and hardware with great success but I would stay with one company for all. Again yes, but there are people who own thousands of dollars worth of LOR hardware that use software other than LOR1 or S2 to drive it. So let's not revert to this being a forum for those who ONLY have LOR products and none other. That kind of thinking can only serve to hurt LOR's business and reputation, not promote it. This question was also asked in the area of this site that is reserved for topics that are "Not necessarily LOR".That being said, I will now answer the question that was asked. Light Show Pro (LSP) is the software that is currently being offered by the same developer who originally built D-Light's Spectrum software. Both were/are based upon the Microsoft Netframework developer product. Both of these sequencing packages, as well as another available software product (Aurora), use serial data communication and the protocol originally developed by LOR. Consequently, all of these softwares (LOR1/S2, LSP, and Aurora) are capable of controlling LOR and D-Light hardware.Now for my opinion of Light Show Pro. LSP and it's predecessor are/were very visually appealing. Spectrum was the first to offer a visible audio waveform and the ability to draw lights over an imported picture in the Visualizer (on a jpeg of your house, for instance). Spectrum was also the first to allow a user to stop a sequence and have the cursor stop where the sequence stopped. But given that Spectrum, and now LSP, are based upon Netframework, these improvements came at a cost. And that cost is the processing power required to operate the software. This, and other matters, is what finally led to the demise of Spectrum. That, and the fact that LOR soon after had integrated cool new features into it's software offering as well.Now LSP has been addressing the "overhead" issue as they prepare for official release, but IMHO the software will always be resource "hungry" as compared to the other available software, no matter how streamlined is becomes, as it is based upon a developer package that is cumbersome by it's very nature (another example would be Java.) LSP has also been spending much effort adding "Nintendo" features to its package as of late. Call me old fashioned and jaded, but I'm really not keen on the idea of being able to control/program my display like I'm playing Guitar Hero on a Wii system. I think that is where myself and LSP are parting ways. But hey, that's just me.Rick--Do yourself a favor and try the LSP demo (Pssst, Dan? Can we have a demo of S2, pretty please? Hint, hint). The only way you'll really be able to decide is to take it for a test drive. Currently LSP's demo does allow hardware control, but it is channel limited. As a comparison, I find Aurora to be a very streamlined program that is easy to understand and goes very easy on computer resources. But it does lack the more advanced features of either LSP or LORS2. Though LOR is very stable and easy on computer resources as compared to the pre-release versions of LSP.As you've been at this since 2007, I assume that you already own LOR1/S2. Then the only issue will be that you will need to install up through Microsoft Netframework 3.5 at the very least, as a few users have had problems running LSP using only earlier versions of Netframework. Personally, if you already have LOR's software, then you're out nothing but your time to try LSP for free. You can always "come back home", so to speak, as you would be hard pressed to find a nicer bunch of folks from which to buy your gear than Dan and the gang at LOR.Cheers!Edit: I should point out that the software Vixen, which is widely used by the Do-It-Yourself community, predated Spectrum and LOR in many of its features. But since the question was about LSP, I didn't mention Vixen. That, and the fact that Vixen does not control LOR protocol based hardware. And that it's...well...free. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wbottomley Posted April 19, 2009 Share Posted April 19, 2009 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Jones Posted April 19, 2009 Share Posted April 19, 2009 tonyjmartin wrote: Edit: I should point out that the software Vixen, which is widely used by the Do-It-Yourself community, predated Spectrum and LOR in many of its features. But since the question was about LSP, I didn't mention Vixen. That, and the fact that Vixen does not control LOR protocol based hardware. And that it's...well...free. But Vixen will control LOR products with the current firmware via DMX.Rick-After the issues I had last year, I am entertaining the idea of a different programming software other than LOR. Vixen is a little limited for the amount of control I need, and I hope LSP can offer the same features. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Ouellet Posted April 20, 2009 Author Share Posted April 20, 2009 Folks,I appreciate all of your comments, I did download the demo version LSP and I'm really not impressed. Nice graphics and all but, I really don't see a need to change. LOR S2 works great. Wanted to see what other folks thought about it.Rick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ponddude Posted April 20, 2009 Share Posted April 20, 2009 Tony...BRAVO!!Excellent post and thank you so much for explaining that!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyjmartin Posted April 20, 2009 Share Posted April 20, 2009 Rick Ouellet wrote: I appreciate all of your comments, I did download the demo version LSP and I'm really not impressed. Nice graphics and all but, I really don't see a need to change. LOR S2 works great. Wanted to see what other folks thought about it.I haven't actually used S2, but reading the manual, watching the discussions here & elsewhere, and looking at the many screen shots available, there's really nothing dramatically more "Wow" about LSP in comparison to S2. Back when I started using Spectrum in 2006, it was far and away much more advanced in the Gui department than LOR1. Not so anymore with S2.Jeff Millard wrote: But isn't the demo kinda behind the development of the current product? It seems from the discussion over there that the software is advancing quickly. It even has some goofy Wii controller interface for something or other.Nope. Each new set of "bells and whistles" that we keep hearing about in each new release candidate of LSP is being issued for demo purposes as well. So you can download the demo and use Wii controllers as tapper or for interactive purposes right now. If you're into that kind of thing (see my previous Guitar Hero reference).Jeff Millard wrote: (...and i agree with William about asking in the LSP forum on PC. I'll bet you'll get quite a bit more input from there that's positive towards LSP...)It would be a very different discussion over at PC. The nice thing about the discussion taking place over here is that there is little chance of someone from LSP jumping in and debating every post. Over here you have LOR users, and what better place for there to be a discussion about the LSP demo in comparison to LOR than where the most LOR users congregate.I used to try to have debates about the pros and cons of LOR/D-Light/Aurora/AL/etc over at PC, but it just becomes a pissing contest. If I want LOR users' opinions about something, I now go to the LOR boards. If I want D-Light users' opinions about somthing, I go to the D-Light boards. If I want to know Chuck Hutchins' opinion about anything, I go to PC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wbottomley Posted April 20, 2009 Share Posted April 20, 2009 tonyjmartin wrote: It would be a very different discussion over at PC. The nice thing about the discussion taking place over here is that there is little chance of someone from LSP jumping in and debating every post. Over here you have LOR users, and what better place for there to be a discussion about the LSP demo in comparison to LOR than where the most LOR users congregate.I used to try to have debates about the pros and cons of LOR/D-Light/Aurora/AL/etc over at PC, but it just becomes a pissing contest. If I want LOR users' opinions about something, I now go to the LOR boards. If I want D-Light users' opinions about somthing, I go to the D-Light boards. If I want to know Chuck Hutchins' opinion about anything, I go to PC. You know Tony, that's a great point too.That's the reason I have no desire to go to pc anymore (BFPCG). This place has more civilized people than pc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wbottomley Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 Jeff Millard wrote: I feel strangely compelled to point out that you mis-spelled his name:cool:JeffDang Jeff... you get a perfect score of 10 for that comment! :dude: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyjmartin Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 Jeff Millard wrote: By a less than obvious manipulation by William and myself, this thread has now mostly become a discussion about the where to better discuss the subject matterI will respectfully disagree. As for myself, each of my two other posts in this thread contained a majority of information in direct response to the original question in addition to defending the validity of having the discussion here in the first place.Jeff Millard wrote: However, here you have die-hard LOR users who will quash any discussion about any other products that come along.Therein does lie one unfortunate similarity to PC. But now is the chance for those here to prove that they can hold themselves to a higher standard. You, me, and William are just three out of a few thousand members here. And many of the rest are hungry for information that they can use to more effectively run their shows and drive their passion for this hobby. Are we going to help them, or just tell them to take it somewhere else if they even mention another product?Jeff Millard wrote: ... and a general agreement that PC sucks along with Chuck Hutchings. (I feel strangely compelled to point out that you mis-spelled his name):cool:I didn't say that PC sucks, but it is difficult to have a productive debate over there. And as for C.H.....I have friends that I've accused of being "full of it" on more than one occasion, so I wasn't trying to be malicious. Just pointing out a fairly obvious truth in a tongue-in-cheek manner. Just so I'm still practicing what I preach... LSP now appears to have lost the feature where the cursor remains where the sequence has been stopped during playback. This was one of the deal-breakers for me back in 2006. So LSP is now similar to LOR in that regard. And to Aurora as well.So....feature request. I want the cursor to stick where I stop/pause a sequence. Or at least have the option to stick, rather than being forced to replay the visible window or the whole sequence. Aurora allows you to click-n-drag over the waveform and play that. But that's not the same, and it doesn't help you out very much when your sequencing "on the fly". I just want the cursor to stick where playback stopped. I could put this in the feature request area, but I assume that Dan is listening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyjmartin Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 Jeff Millard wrote: You need to lighten up a little and not take my words so literally.I thought I was taking this pretty lightly. Hence my first reference to Professor Hutchings over at PC. I do tend to be a bit verbose, so maybe my ultimate goal of perpetuating the free exchange of information gets lost.I just don't want to see doors get shut on members at the mere mention of another company's name. Makes everybody look bad and scares away the the ones who could really use some objective information.No worries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terrypowerz Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 I keep trying the other offerings, but end up coming back to using LOR and now S2 to do my sequencing...lower overhead and just "feels" more productive to me. Just my own personal preference! You guys do still crack me up sometimes....I just "can't wanna" get that worked up about a lot of those things.:cool:I must be too easy going!Rock on! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts