LOR Configuration File - how do you reflect setup changes in LSP?

[taybrynn]

Ok,

We all know that sometime we make changes to our display ... small or major ... and end up changing whats hooked up to which controllers, etc.

In LOR, you would update your configuration sequence (to say match your latest spreadsheet of display item to controller channels) ... and then
export a config file and then re-import it into each sequence (musical animation) file. 

Is there a similar or different process you would go through to update all your songs for your latest 'configuration' in LSP?

What I'm trying to ask is ... how do you make these wiring changes and then get them reflected into all your songs/sequences ?

I'm just starting to use LSP and am worried a bit that I'll have to go in and change each song and controller individually ... and I'm thinking
that surely there is method for handling this situation, the configuration of controllers applies across all song/sequences, or should.

thanks,
taybrynn

[mmulvenna]

Not currently, perhaps it will be included in V2.

[taybrynn]

Thanks. 

It's just that I would consider this to be essential capability, certainly more important than wii remote support or ipad interfaces.

I think LSP is quite good, but to be become truly great ... it must be rock solid at the bread and butter essentials found in the 20 side
of the 80/20 mix.  This means redo/undo, accurate chase (just see how LOR S2 does it), solid and reliable scheduler and yearly configuration
flexibility. 

To whom it may concern as LSP ... please less gimmicks and more core capabilities ... thats my $.02 worth.  You have done a wonderful job
or making LSP the leader in compatibility with hardware, protocols and RGB ... so lets take that to the basic features as well.

[dmoore]

I can assure you that David over at LSP is quite aware of these exact concerns and I suspect that you'll find that all of them will be addressed in the 2.0 release of LSP.

[taybrynn]

Thats very good to hear, thanks David !

[Jeffl]

Exactly my experience as well.  We'll let David keep on them.  There is enough developments in hardware as of late that whoever creates a software package capable to handle large channel counts easy with rock solid performance is going to be a huge winner.

In the past I would say some of us with large channel counts were just too a small of a piece of the market.  This year 600 channels will be considered a small to medium sized display instead of huge like this year.

[dmoore]

Exactly my experience as well.  We'll let David keep on them.  There is enough developments in hardware as of late that whoever creates a software package capable to handle large channel counts easy with rock solid performance is going to be a huge winner.

In the past I would say some of us with large channel counts were just too a small of a piece of the market.  This year 600 channels will be considered a small to medium sized display instead of huge like this year.

I'm curious - what is a package that handles tens-of-thousands of channels, has lots of auto-sequencing functionality and is rock solid worth price wise?  It seems we are really investing thousands in complex hardware and that really complex software will be key to making it run properly.  What is that worth?

[taybrynn]

It is probably worth a lot more than the current price.

But that said, in its current form, it is worth very little.

Once LSP is reliable or even semi-reliable ... I'll be one of
the first to tell the world and celebrate.

Since LSP really targeted the DIY market in 2010, thats automatically
not the high-end customer(s) ...  since many people go DIY to save
money in the first place.

[dmoore]

It is probably worth a lot more than the current price.

But that said, in its current form, it is worth very little.

Once LSP is reliable or even semi-reliable ... I'll be one of
the first to tell the world and celebrate.

Since LSP really targeted the DIY market in 2010, thats automatically
not the high-end customer(s) ...  since many people go DIY to save
money in the first place.

I’m not sure LSP is completely targeted to the DIY market since it supports just about anything on the market, including the LOR protocol.  Of course it’s hard to compete with the “single package” solution that LOR offers.

So, say LSP is 100% stable or as stable as Vixen and LOR S2 are and also contain the other functions I mentioned.  Is this worth $100, $200, $400?  Would it be better to sell it on a channel count basis?  We’ll assume there isn’t a Object Oriented version of vixen for free…

[taybrynn]

I agree that this software could very likely be sold for far more, if and when its rock solid and not so beta-like.

I agree that better ways to sell various versions of it could also allow for small, medium and small setups at various price and/or license levels.

I'm not sure I like the charging per channel, since RGB would automatically be reserved for richie rich or pros.

I think its jumping the gun a bit, since right now, I feel the software is worth about $9.99 in its current version.  That said, it could be worth $499.99 if it worked well and was rock solid.

It's kind of strange union right now, because I think a lot of people will try LSP and run back to Vixen or LOR unless the issues are resolved.  I'm just worried that a lot of people are wanting to go with S Strings ... and if LSP is the only software to support pixelnet, its going to be a painful road unless the promised LSP 2.x is a lot better.  I trust it will be, or a lot of us will be sitting on gear we can't use in 2011.

Scott