only thing that matters is will the entire setup cost less than an FB4
Needs moar photons
only thing that matters is will the entire setup cost less than an FB4
Senior Member
William Benner and Justin Perry made some facebook comments that should clarify this.Originally Posted by flecom
(https://www.facebook.com/groups/Laserist/permalink/929029890495385/?comment_id=929176610480713&offset=0&total_comment s=21&comment_tracking={%22tn%22%3A%22R9%22})
Sadly he also had this to say:
With FB4, our standard test scenario is three separate cascaded wireless networks. FB4 can withstand this kind of environment which professionals will no doubt use. From what we know about IDN so far -- our opinion is -- no way. We will make a video comparing the results of FB4 on networks and IDN on networks and then everyone can judge for themselves.Stated another way -- why should Pangolin spend our development time implementing what we strongly believe is a sub-optimal protocol, when we could spend our time continuing to develop the great tools and completely new things for laserists to use? Plus, if we support two protocols, this will INEVITABLY create many support phone calls. Stated another way, we are spending Pangolin's time (and the customer's money) answering phone calls that we would not have otherwise. Sorry, but your idealistic view does not take into account the daily realities of a company that must support products and customers in the field!!!So it looks like Pangolin sees IDN as an inferior protocol and do not want to spend their time and resources making it compatible. Which is of course understandable but not good for the industry. I think that, at the least, there should be a public API available so people can easily make their hard- and software FB4-compatible, so that we can keep the current level of compliance up. Now, an Ilda connector fits about all projectors. But when people start putting their own ethernet controllers in there with their own proprietary protocols we'll lose that flexibility, which would be a bad thing.Moreover, according to my discussions with Dirk, his IDN boxes could only support a pretty small number of devices on a 100mBit line (something between 3 and perhaps 7). On the other hand, we have had *** FOURTY *** FB4 running on a single 100mBit line.
I don't remember exactly wher he said it but I got the impression the FB4 would be more like a range of products, working on the same core but in different shapes, like the several flavors of the FB3 (with or without DMX, with or without SD card etc). So I guess the final price of an FB4 system would be dependent on the amount of options you desire.only thing that matters is will the entire setup cost less than an FB4
In addition IDN is just a standard. Like an Ilda cable. Does an Ilda cable setup cost less than an FB4? Depends on the length of the cable, the DAC you use, the software, the quality of the connectors and so much more. Like apple and oranges. A question not easily answered.
Jr. Woodchuckington Janitor III, Esq.
i will forward this to dirk apitz and dr. matthias frank and post their response.
i am extremely fussy about the quality of my shows. both during creation and playback. i only agreed to play my work through the IDN network at ILDA after comparing the output between IDN and my etherdream. if i wasn't satisfied with the quality, i wouldn't have used it.
if pangolin thinks they have a better "standard", i challenge them to open it for use by the entire laser community.
from patrick murphy via facebook:
"IDN was the only networking standard submitted to ILDA. I do not believe there was any submission from Pangolin; otherwise we would certainly have considered something from Pangolin. If there are limitations in IDN, these could be addressed by Members working on a V 2.0 version. We welcome any ILDA Members wanting to improve networking. Again, the ideal goal is to have a single projector plug-in standard like the DB-25 which Pangolin helped develop and promote when I was there.
ILDA is also interested in moving forward, not staying where we've been for years. We want a digital networking standard. The difference is that in the 1990s the moving forward was helped by Pangolin; while in the 20-teens Pangolin developed its own proprietary projector interconnection protocol. Imagine if the iPhone could only call other iPhones, not Android or landlines. Maybe that would have worked out better for Apple <g> -- certainly that is their right to do that. As for ILDA, we will continue to work on IDN since that is what we have: "You dance with the one who brung you." We are always open to contributed improvements or even adoption of alternate systems if those are presented to us."
bill blocked me on facebook so i can't directly see the discussion there.
Last edited by swamidog; 10-18-2015 at 07:28.
suppose you're thinkin' about a plate o' shrimp. Suddenly someone'll say, like, plate, or shrimp, or plate o' shrimp out of the blue, no explanation. No point in lookin' for one, either. It's all part of a cosmic unconciousness.
Senior Member
It will certainly be bad if all projectors started coming with Ethernet ports and only understood a signal that came from Pangolin hardware. I can't imagine that will ever be the case, though.
-
ILDA moves at a snails pace. It took them years to approve frame formats 4 & 5. The industry feeds ILDA, not the other way around. ILDA should be learning what is best for the industry by observing the current needs and taking input from the leaders of the industry. IDN is something that should have been introduced years ago so I don't really buy that ILDA is actually even working in the best interest of the industry. I don't know if Pangolin just wants to keep their secrets or if they just don't have time to argue with committee members about what the best path is. I know how the committees work and I have had a glimpse of how ILDA works. "Works" is a generous term in both cases.
-
ILDA and the rest of the laser companies are free to get the ball moving and finish the IDN standard, define the hardware, get it manufactured, etc. They don't need Pangolin for that. Compare this scenario to the VHS/Betamax wars or to the more recent HDTV OTA protocol war. The better solution doesn't always win. But, if no one is providing an alternative in a timely fashion then there is no choice. If Pangolin is hurting the industry by this then it is because the industry and ILDA are sitting on their butts or are just too hard to get to agree to something. By moving forward, Pangolin is helping the consumer have at least some option. It may be overpriced but that's just how it works, in any industry.
-
I also don't agree that it is Pangolin's duty or there is even a case for them to release a public API. Why should they? They developed it without help from the public so why should they basically let the public use it for free? I absolutely HATE that Pangolin has so much control on things in this industry and always have and I only give Bill Benner credit for being in that situation. I have always respected him and his company for that, despite what others may have thought.
-
--- I just noticed swami posted as I am typing this and noted that ILDA stated they went with this because it is the only one submitted. That just seems to indicate a lack of interest from the industry to me.
-
I am fully behind Pangolin on this one.
Last edited by JohnYayas; 10-18-2015 at 10:54.
Senior Member
PS Why does formatting suck so bad on this forum?
Senior Member
I disagree. If Pangolin ever decides to release this API (which they never did for FB3 so the precedent indicates they won't) then this is not necessarily bad for them. Because the protocol should be for the FB4 only, not for other equipment. Of course, if it becomes widely used, then it might become the new industry standard, but even then is that so bad for Pangolin? I think it's unquestionable that they have the best soft- and hardware out there and as long as they can keep that quality level up they shouldn't worry about losing sales to people using their own protocol. Right now there are two "groups" in the laser world: you either use Pangolin or you don't. Simply because Pangolin isn't compatible. If you go with Pangolin you have to invest thousands into new software and hardware. If you decided to not go for Pangolin and get other gear, and later on want to have Pangolin stuff you need to start anew, all of your old stuff becomes uncompatible. It's been like that for ages and nobody really likes this situation, but now it threatens to get worse since controllers are starting to get built in into projectors.
If Pangolin on the other hand publishes an open API, then what will happen?
- Their hardware will get supported by a lot of other software packages
- Their software might become compatible with other hardware
I fail to see what the downside is from Pangolin's point of view. In both situations, it could even mean more sales for them! People who use an Etherdream for their own coding projects could buy Quickshow for live shows. People with FB4's could buy LSX so they can enjoy award-winning abstract shows with their own optimisation settings instead of having to import some badly-rendered ilda file into Pangolin software. And the big guys will just keep on using Beyond with a bazillion FB4's.
Of course that's just my fantasy and there are probably a couple things I didn't think about. And I certainly don't hope to dictate Pangolin what to do.
Senior Member
Pangolin is allowing programming for the FB3 through BEYOND API soon... this is not a lie but it costs time and this time currently is reserved for other aspects in BEYOND for now.
Regarding the network.. it makes no sense for them to suddenly change around things for the IDN standard... It took them so long to even introduce this IDN standard let alone release it.. by the time pangolin was already done with their FB4 hardware.
They release something and suddenly since a standard comes out afterwards they are told by members to comform to the standard because?? Even though they have their own work enviroment that people can work just perfectly fine with and have a huge userbase that's only growing.
Pangolin makes their money on these DAC's and likely does not want to offer support on other DACs and for sure they would get support calls from clients using their software regarding a third party DAC would they support other DACs and that's likely not what they want. I also do not want to carry around an USB key dongle to use the software which is easier to lose!
It would open Pangolins software to even more hacking...Which I have caught attempts off in the past on several forums and had to report as this harms pangolin show programmers like me. I rather see Pangolin use their time differently then strengthening security..I mean mamba supported a dozen of dacs and it did get cracked.. so did Phoenix... Having to buy a DAC that's made by them and they are in complete control of minimizes this problem greatly.
Not only that but lasershows that are encrypted are encrypted to DAC serial numbers... this would be a problem if all kinds of DAC's can be used.
While the IDN dac is most certainly interesting (especially on the part where you can add as many color channels as you want as long as the DAC has the outputs for it). I am mixed on it's computational requirements where people also picked on.
Regarding the ILDA plug to IDN converter: It's too expensive... What like 750 euros for a Ethernet chip, FPGA or DSP and an ADC and DAC and some ports?? Like I get it costs time and money to write software for those 2 devices but if they'd lowered the price of it they would have more people buying it and more of it.
Last edited by masterpj; 10-18-2015 at 08:48.
Senior Member
Pangolin's hardware is expensive so there will never be a good case for buying Pangolin hardware and using it with other software. Even if you want to run multiple FB3s you have to pay out the butt for each one. The hardware is only woth $100 or less when you compare it to what you get. With Pangolin you are paying for software even though they say they give it away for free with the hardware. If you want to use other software then there is plenty of cheaper hardware to use with that software. There will be some people who buy a bunch of everything but in general, a package will be bought and that one will be used. It may help guys like me to be able to interface with an FB3 but Pangolin gets nothing out of letting Spaghetti or LSX work with FB3.
Pangolin doesn't want their software to be compatible with other hardware. Bill has said that and explained why and his reasons make sense.
Last edited by JohnYayas; 10-18-2015 at 13:22.
Jr. Woodchuckington Janitor III, Esq.
your price is off by a few hundred euros:
http://www.dexlogic.com/work/4108-is...te-ISP-en.html
suppose you're thinkin' about a plate o' shrimp. Suddenly someone'll say, like, plate, or shrimp, or plate o' shrimp out of the blue, no explanation. No point in lookin' for one, either. It's all part of a cosmic unconciousness.
Senior Member
Nah. They might open it up to some but you know they aren't going to follow the general practice of providing a .h file and a document that describes how to use it. Going through Beyond to control a little piece of hardware is ridiculous anyway.
It would make sense if the standard was complete and makes sense but that isn't the case. Is anyone telling them they need to conform? I doubt it.Regarding the network.. it makes no sense for them to suddenly change around things for the IDN standard... It took them so long to even introduce this IDN standard let alone release it.. by the time pangolin was already done with their FB4 hardware.
They release something and suddenly since a standard comes out afterwards they are told by members to comform to the standard because?? Even though they have their own work enviroment that people can work just perfectly fine with and have a huge userbase that's only growing.
Yes, good points and they do make a lot of money on these DACs because the DACs are relatively inexpensive to produce compared to the sale price. The reality is that you're paying for the software and more or less getting the hardware for free.Pangolin makes their money on these DAC's and likely does not want to offer support on other DACs and for sure they would get support calls from clients using their software regarding a third party DAC would they support other DACs and that's likely not what they want. I also do not want to carry around an USB key dongle to use the software which is easier to lose!
It would open Pangolins software to even more hacking...Which I have caught attempts off in the past on several forums and had to report as this harms pangolin show programmers like me. I rather see Pangolin use their time differently then strengthening security..I mean mamba supported a dozen of dacs and it did get cracked.. so did Phoenix... Having to buy a DAC that's made by them and they are in complete control of minimizes this problem greatly.
Not only that but lasershows that are encrypted are encrypted to DAC serial numbers... this would be a problem if all kinds of DAC's can be used.
Computational requirements are puny if you use a modern processor.While the IDN dac is most certainly interesting (especially on the part where you can add as many color channels as you want as long as the DAC has the outputs for it). I am mixed on it's computational requirements where people also picked on.
That makes no sense when you look at the cost of buying an FB3. If the industry gets on board with IDN there will be a lot of room for prices to come down due to competition as opposed to Pangolin who can sell their hardware at elevated prices due to no competition.Regarding the ILDA plug to IDN converter: It's too expensive... What like 750 euros for a Ethernet chip, FPGA or DSP and an ADC and DAC and some ports?? Like I get it costs time and money to write software for those 2 devices but if they'd lowered the price of it they would have more people buying it and more of it.
Businesswise, Pangolin is doing what suits them and any other business that wanted to stay in business would do the same thing.
Last edited by JohnYayas; 10-18-2015 at 13:25.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote