Dear Pangolin ... I feel very upset with you

[pyrodigy]

I have got 2 pcs fb3s and can not use with beyond distributed scanning feature.
I personaly accept that lower version software could only 2 controller permitted to use this feature but i do not understand why fb3s have not permitted ?
fb3 s are not your children ?
Thanks

[norty303]

You'll probably have better traction posting that to somewhere Pangolin related, such as their support page or FB group (there was a good explanation on a thread there, but of course its Facebook, so no chance of ever finding it again!)
As I understand it, it's to do with how the FB4's can synchronise to each other (or something like that) so not just that they're forcing you to upgrade by withholding functionality.

[Lyra]

Distributed scanning requires very accurate timing for results to look correct and not have a "screen tearing" look to it. And the FB4 due to its network based nature allows for the FB4's to always be sending at the right time and be properly synchronized.

[JohnYayas]

Distributed scanning requires very accurate timing for results to look correct and not have a "screen tearing" look to it. And the FB4 due to its network based nature allows for the FB4's to always be sending at the right time and be properly synchronized.

How is that? With ethernet you have no guarantee of delivery time. With USB you more or less do.

[aberry]

How is that? With ethernet you have no guarantee of delivery time. With USB you more or less do.

Well, there are protocols that achieve high precision timing over network links, for example Precision Time Protocol (IEEE 1588). This is used in AVB, to achieve sub-microsecond sample alignment between channels, which matters for audio since human hearing is very sensitive to phasing. However this level of precision can only be achieved with MACs that have hardware ingress/egress timestamping, and AFAIK isn't available on PC network interfaces because of variability in the timing of the layers of OS and drivers between the application layer and the port hardware. FB4s could use a similar scheme to synchronize with each other if not with the controlling PC.

[buffo]

The Quickshow controller doesn't have any support for external sync, but the FB4 does. I've seen FB4s running off time-code, for example.

So, yeah, I'm sure that Beyond is somehow syncing all the FB4s to each other. No idea what the exact method is though.

I suspect that they could also get distributed scanning to work with the QM2000 hardware if they were willing to put a lot of effort into the development, but given that it's 20-year-old hardware at this point I can understand why they want to focus on the FB4 instead.

Adam

[JohnYayas]

The Quickshow controller doesn't have any support for external sync, but the FB4 does. I've seen FB4s running off time-code, for example.

So, yeah, I'm sure that Beyond is somehow syncing all the FB4s to each other. No idea what the exact method is though.

I suspect that they could also get distributed scanning to work with the QM2000 hardware if they were willing to put a lot of effort into the development, but given that it's 20-year-old hardware at this point I can understand why they want to focus on the FB4 instead.

Adam

External sync is just a way to set the clock time. Once set, sending data accurately is easy. But, that means being able to store the data until the precise time to send it. If the FB3 doesn't have the buffer space and the firmware for it isn't written in a way to take advantage of such a thing then it isn't going to work. I imagine FB3s are designed to just send data as soon as they get it. Being the case, the host would be responsible for syncing data. That shouldn't be a problem within a frame or two but I doubt it is possible to sync points. You'd need 20microsecond accuracy or so.

[buffo]

Excellent point, Gary.

I agree that the FB3 probably does not have much of a buffer, to say nothing of the firmware to sync to adjacent controllers at a per-point level of accuracy.

Adam