Gilrock
Full time elf
I've used the LOR sequencer the past 2 years and just recently heard about LSP so I've been trying out the demo. I see a lot of things I like about LSP but the program is not as easy to use as LOR. And it's not just a learning curve issue...even after I learned how to do a chase it's still seems faster to do it in LOR.
- For chases in LOR you just drag out a selection and the top row is used as the source of the chase. In LSP it seems like I have to draw the initial row and then copy the cells then hold down Shift as I draw out a selection to create a chase. The problem in LSP is the screen did not seem to scroll down if I wanted to create a chase across more channels than I had displayed in the window. In LOR the window will scroll as you are dragging out the selection box.
- I spent like 2 hours in LSP trying to draw a couple channel objects that had non-standard shapes. The drawing tools could use some real improvement. It was a pain having a box pop up asking me if I wanted to split the channels after every single line I drew. Maybe I wasn't using the draw utitility correctly but I could find no way to click points around the outline of an irregular shape without it wanting to pop up the split channel dialog.
- After drawing channels the bulbs no longer looked round when playing a sequence.
- In the channel display if you draw an arch and then select the pointer tool to click anywhere on the display the program gets a crash error message. So you are unable to change the size or location of the arch after you draw it.
- Timing intervals. I didn't see a way in LSP to have multiple timing grids that you can switch between. In LOR you can switch between any number of timing grids you create which makes it much easier to see the timing you want to use for a particular set of lights.
- Transitions. This was a big plus I saw in LSP. Being able to map videos to a matrix or set of RGB channels worked really nice. I don't think this capability exists in LOR.
- # of licenced PC's. I didn't find the answer to this so maybe one of you can help. In LOR I can install the product on upto 5 PC's. I need to be able to install on at least 3 because I use 1 for a show computer and my son helps me sequence so we need 2 installs for sequencing. If LSP was limited to 1 PC I wouldn't be able to go that route.
- Scheduler. I didn't try the scheduler in LSP but I read a lot of posts that make me scared to even rely on that program to run my show. The LOR scheduler ran my show for 3 weeks almost completely unattended. The only time I restarted the show was to add a new song into the schedule. I never touched the show computer between xmas and new years so it ran at least a full week unattended.
- Large matrix support. This also was a big advantage in LSP. I was able to create a 48x80 matrix fairly easy and then I created an E1.31 device with 3840 channels and I was able to map frames of a waving flag onto the matrix. The only problem I ran into here was if I drew the square for the matrix too small it didn't even show a box at all.
So since LSP seemed cumbersome to use and has scheduler issues I was thinking I would try to use LOR to continue to develop my sequences and use the LOR scheduler and then use LSP to create any larger RGB elements or to add transitions into my sequences. I would export and then paste any LSP work in LOR. So I said let me see if I happened to build a 48x80 matrix if I would be able to represent that in LOR. In the LOR Visualizer I could not find a good way to draw a matrix. It seemed like I was going to need to draw individual RGB bulbs and manually map the channels to each bulb. So I got the idea to write a tool that could edit the Visualizer file since it was in XML format. I was able to create a program in one day that could open the Visualizer file and then I had a dialog to specify I wanted to add a matrix and I could define the number of rows and columns and then create a list of DMX universes that I wanted mapped to the channels in the matrix. Everything worked great when I created a small 10x10 matrix. It was showing up perfect when I opened up the modified file in the Visualizer. But then I tried to create the 48x80 matrix and upon opening the file the Visualizer crashed. I submitted to ticket to LOR and the developer whined about not supporting 3rd party tools. I didn't need support for my tool. It was really no different than me manually editing the XML file. The developer pointed me to a page showing the Visualizer limitations and I could see the issue. They only support 256 props and I was having to draw each bulb in the matrix as a prop. What really irked me was the reply from the developer stating that I could do everything just fine if I was using LOR products like the CCRs. A 48x80 matrix using LOR products would probably be on the order of $20,000. I'm afraid they don't see the future of where this hobby is going to be with many users wanting to go to larger numbers of RGB channels.
So I'm not sure which program I want to use for the future. It will probably end up being a combination of both depending on the task or element I'm trying to sequence.
Gil
- For chases in LOR you just drag out a selection and the top row is used as the source of the chase. In LSP it seems like I have to draw the initial row and then copy the cells then hold down Shift as I draw out a selection to create a chase. The problem in LSP is the screen did not seem to scroll down if I wanted to create a chase across more channels than I had displayed in the window. In LOR the window will scroll as you are dragging out the selection box.
- I spent like 2 hours in LSP trying to draw a couple channel objects that had non-standard shapes. The drawing tools could use some real improvement. It was a pain having a box pop up asking me if I wanted to split the channels after every single line I drew. Maybe I wasn't using the draw utitility correctly but I could find no way to click points around the outline of an irregular shape without it wanting to pop up the split channel dialog.
- After drawing channels the bulbs no longer looked round when playing a sequence.
- In the channel display if you draw an arch and then select the pointer tool to click anywhere on the display the program gets a crash error message. So you are unable to change the size or location of the arch after you draw it.
- Timing intervals. I didn't see a way in LSP to have multiple timing grids that you can switch between. In LOR you can switch between any number of timing grids you create which makes it much easier to see the timing you want to use for a particular set of lights.
- Transitions. This was a big plus I saw in LSP. Being able to map videos to a matrix or set of RGB channels worked really nice. I don't think this capability exists in LOR.
- # of licenced PC's. I didn't find the answer to this so maybe one of you can help. In LOR I can install the product on upto 5 PC's. I need to be able to install on at least 3 because I use 1 for a show computer and my son helps me sequence so we need 2 installs for sequencing. If LSP was limited to 1 PC I wouldn't be able to go that route.
- Scheduler. I didn't try the scheduler in LSP but I read a lot of posts that make me scared to even rely on that program to run my show. The LOR scheduler ran my show for 3 weeks almost completely unattended. The only time I restarted the show was to add a new song into the schedule. I never touched the show computer between xmas and new years so it ran at least a full week unattended.
- Large matrix support. This also was a big advantage in LSP. I was able to create a 48x80 matrix fairly easy and then I created an E1.31 device with 3840 channels and I was able to map frames of a waving flag onto the matrix. The only problem I ran into here was if I drew the square for the matrix too small it didn't even show a box at all.
So since LSP seemed cumbersome to use and has scheduler issues I was thinking I would try to use LOR to continue to develop my sequences and use the LOR scheduler and then use LSP to create any larger RGB elements or to add transitions into my sequences. I would export and then paste any LSP work in LOR. So I said let me see if I happened to build a 48x80 matrix if I would be able to represent that in LOR. In the LOR Visualizer I could not find a good way to draw a matrix. It seemed like I was going to need to draw individual RGB bulbs and manually map the channels to each bulb. So I got the idea to write a tool that could edit the Visualizer file since it was in XML format. I was able to create a program in one day that could open the Visualizer file and then I had a dialog to specify I wanted to add a matrix and I could define the number of rows and columns and then create a list of DMX universes that I wanted mapped to the channels in the matrix. Everything worked great when I created a small 10x10 matrix. It was showing up perfect when I opened up the modified file in the Visualizer. But then I tried to create the 48x80 matrix and upon opening the file the Visualizer crashed. I submitted to ticket to LOR and the developer whined about not supporting 3rd party tools. I didn't need support for my tool. It was really no different than me manually editing the XML file. The developer pointed me to a page showing the Visualizer limitations and I could see the issue. They only support 256 props and I was having to draw each bulb in the matrix as a prop. What really irked me was the reply from the developer stating that I could do everything just fine if I was using LOR products like the CCRs. A 48x80 matrix using LOR products would probably be on the order of $20,000. I'm afraid they don't see the future of where this hobby is going to be with many users wanting to go to larger numbers of RGB channels.
So I'm not sure which program I want to use for the future. It will probably end up being a combination of both depending on the task or element I'm trying to sequence.
Gil