| Home | News | Products | Support | Download | Sales | library | Guests | Contact | WebCam | Links | |
 |
LanBox-Talk mail archive |
| By date: Prev | Next | Index | By thread: Prev | Next | Index | ||||||
I totally disagree with a slower dmx protocol. Why?? Wasn't it not so long age that some lights can only work with their own controllers. And in those times we had to run one cable for the smoke mchine which controls output and timing and blah!blah!blah!, Then another cable for the strobe light and two cables if we had two strobe lights and another long twin 9 pin din cable for our parcan controllers. And the list goes on. By building a slower dmx controller for the slower, inferior lights would mean supporting these manufacturers. Well! If you are going to do that, let me thank you first on their behalf. Antari smoke machines??? Cheap? Yes After my friend bought two units and started giving problems.Hmmmmm these made in China machines are not getting my support no matter how cheap they are. Hey! I thought DMX was a single standard protocol. Is somebody going to develop DMX MKII and DMX MK III and so on just to sell more equipment. If so we might as well go back to running massive copper cables. Hey? What happened to conservation and recycling and the green earth. Less copper cables!! For your info... I'm still grapling with my Lanbox-LC which still works. Maybe you should develop a "dmx slow down" patchbay or something. just to educate the world that maybe dmx is too fast for them. Not that it will sell for very long but just so that everyone will ask questions like, "How come I have to buy this slow down dmx adapter to run this light?" ... Would be very interesting for the lighting manufacturer to answer. He! He! No one wants an inferior light controller if they can afford it.
| |||||||
| By date: Prev | Next | Index | By thread: Prev | Next | Index | ||||||