As some of you might not know, is what we see in myDMX is what we are getting. They have no plans to improve this software other then fixing bugs. So therefor sooner or later we are going to have to move to something else as this program will die out.

The point I am trying to make here the EFX generator is BROKEN! Yes it will make effects for a scence, but it WONT allow you to make multiple effects for multiple fixtures in scence. So that means we have to create the scences manually. So the big question...

Question:
Do you think the effect generator is broken and needs to be improved for better use and the developers should correct it so we can create multiple effects that are applied to across different light fixtures as we select?

Choices:
Yes
No

 

Jscott, First off welcome to the forums. Let me start by saying I never said no updates EVER, just none foreseeable in the immediate future. The EFX gen is not broken, it does what it says which is generate EFX's on the fixtures. What you are trying to do can be done, it just needs a little work done behind it. have you ever tried to make a circle pattern on a board that had NO efx gen or movement creator? i have on a dmx operator 192. was it hard? yes. did my hard work pay off in the end to get my desired effect? Yes. Also how long have you been using my dmx for? So im sure there is a way i can help you out on this program to get the desired effects you are trying to achieve. Let me know if your intrested. With software there are always loopholes right?
Sincerely,

quote:

Let me know if your intrested

Ok. For instance, lets say I want to have 2 moving heads to do a polygon effect then 4 scanners to do a circle sweep, then 4 scanners to do front and back sweep. All this can be done by using the EFX generator but it can't be done all at once. We have to go in create and setup our scences step by step. I wish there was a way to view the source files of the EFX that you can save. That way we could open up multiple EFX in a text editor and copy and paste into a new EFX file for a scence.

Well, you need to clarify and be very specific. Semantics does make a BIG difference.

You want 2 moving yokes to do one thing. Concurrently, you have a bank of scanners(I assume same make/model) do to something different. Also concurrently, you want another scanners(I assume different models at least) to do something else.

Am I correct in stating you have 3 different fixtures you want doing different things all at once?

You said "then" and "then" which would mean "Have the movers do this, after which the scanners in bank 1 do this, and after that has completed have the second bank of scanners do something different".

Sorry, I just get paid good money to find these sort of problems(people who misuse language). Despite English being a rather crude an often times confusing language, we could all revert to "legalese" and guarantee a total break down in communication.

My biggest concern in your environment would be if you have 8 of the same type of scanner. I personally think that would be a big excessive, but then again, if you like them, it makes perfect sense to get a good numbre of them. Heck, I'd probably do something similar myself, but I doubt I'd buy 8 scanners because my application is different. It's not really the having 8 of the same scanners that would be the issue exactly, but rather how MyDMX would see these in the FX generator. MyDMX would see these as a group of 8, rather than 2 groups of 4.

But that's a lot of assumption.

But assuming you do have 8 of the same thing, the best way around this would be to copy and rename the profile to represent the "other bank of scanners". Not necessarily ideal. It really depends on how you plan to go about this. If you don't really look at them as banks or groups, but rather "I want these 4 to do this, and those 4 to do that" but in another scene, you're looking at them as pairs.... You might end up with needing 8 identical but renamed fixture profiles.

Why don't you do this? Why not contact me via my website and maybe afterwards, email me your universe, show and stage. Let me see what you're using and how you have it laid out, then let me play around with it. Time permitting of course.

As it is, in my case, my fixtures are much simpler overall(2 movers, no other controllable movement in other units), but selecting basically everything at once in FX generator, it does bring up tabs letting me get control over certain things.

Ah yes, the days of just consoles. Never saw them complain, and yet they did some pretty amazing things with them without the sophistication of a computer-based software package. I guess I'm just old school and would do what it takes to get the job done, and if that took pencil and paper to assist, then so be it.

I just bought the myDMX box myself, and have been playing around with it for some time now. And I've gotten to know the software on a basic level. So now I'm playing around with more advanced scenes, and I'm missing that very feature Jscott asks for - though I will try to explain on a more basic level.

My scenario: I've currently got two Martin SCX700 and two Martin MX-1s (+ a 1500w Acme strobe). Let's say I want to program the SCX700s to make circular movements and the MX-1s to pan from left-to-right. Though it's quite simple to program the paning without using the efx generator, I still want to use the efx generator. I want to use the efx-generator for these simple tasks, just to learn to use the program. Imagine exchanging the tasks for more complex movements...

So, I want these two tasks in the same scene and on the same steps. If I try to use generator to make the circular movement for SCX700s then afterwards the pan movement for the MX-1s, I get two sets of steps in the same scene. Where the MX-1's is idle when the SCX700s do their circular movement, and vice-versa.

My scenario is simply; let's say both the circular movement and the paning is done in 10 steps, then it should be generated on the same ten steps.


My suggestion for a fix to this would be to add possibility for one to choose if the efx generator updates the current steps with the new generated program or add new steps. So that if I first use the generator to make a 10step circular movement for the scx700s, then make a 10step paning movement for the MX-1s on top of the SCX700s steps.

I hope it's possible to understand what I'm asking about
And I hope someone has an answer for me..
Though for what I know this may very well be done in the software already :P

What you are asking is VERY hard to do. You also wouldn't be able to do this on a regular console unless you did it manually step by step no EFX generator. if you Want to use the efx generator but have two sets of lights doing some different it is not gonna combine the two sets it is going to add it at the end of the first sequence. not sure why it does this but that is the way it is and i know of no way to get around this to do what you are talking about unless you do it step by step your self. Sorry. Welcome to the forums.
sincerely,

MyDMX simply doesn't allow for that functionality.

I hear all this pining for this and that, and what I really hear is "I'm too lazy to genuinely make an effort", which is a good way to ensure yourself no work in an industry you appear to want to try to work in.

If it was me, and I needed to do that, and let's say it was "10 step for this and 10 steps for that", you can document BOTH and then combine. Wow, so easy. I almost pooped myself it's so easy! Pen/pencil and some paper and in 3 minutes, I got it done. Oh my goodness, I'm got so much extra free time by just "gettin' 'er done" that it's done and now I can go try to give a root canal to by VCR! Whee!!!

Sarcasm aside, if you claim you can do this with the the FX generator and then modifying the first step, then why aren't you? If you want circles for one fixture, and then the other fixture to move LEFT, I'd just do that. When it loops, since the "one that moved to the left" hasn't budged, it ain't gonna. But in your case, you want "move to left" done via pan in 10 equal steps. Fine. Figure out the range you need those steps to be in and then map it out, ain't difficult. BUT, the problem comes back to the loop point. My suggestion might be to undo that pan to the left and have it go back to the right as you do a second circle. Then when you loop, you've got both movements completely covered. If you don't want that backwards pan movement, then you might want to instruct the next scene you want things to jump to.

You can always make a scene takes a huge amount of steps overly-sufficient to get your point across. You could simply repeat the circles, and then at step 11(when your pan movement is complete), simply leave that one OUT of furture steps and it should stay in place. Let the circle's 10 steps repeat endlessly at this point

We don't stay working by making excuses. We stay working by ensuring we get the job done.

Now, having said that, copy/paste of steps would be a nice addition that would probably resolve SOME issues.

Maybe adding a different option:
If you select steps from one scene, and you COPY them, then you highlight a range of steps in another scene, instead of Cut, Copy and Paste, perhaps a "Merge Data" would show up, allowing you paste new data onto/over the selected steps. Might get kind of ugly when they don't match up. For example, my circles show 20 points, but when I generate the steps, I see only 6. But what if I have some other lights doing a 10-step thing that takes 10 steps, might end up making 16 total scenes to compensate for the differences. Gotta be some timing elements involved.

I don't have enough lights to replicate this scenario, but I know I could get it done rather quickly if I had to. But that's why I do my light design off-line because come show-time, audio is the priority, and lighting is 3rd on the list(audio, then video, then lighting).

Old school copy/paste. Works every time.

I don't understand your need to be sarcastic, if I wanted a sarcastic answer I would have asked for one!
The reason that I do ask, is so that I don't do it the hard way for ages, and then find out that there is a faster way.

If I had the source for the software, I would simply implement what I'm asking for... Cause it's not that hard to implement. Anyhow have a nice day.