Re: [LCtalk] Going to use te Lanbox again for next project

[Fokko van Duin]

At 22:58 +0100 01-03-2006, Dennis Peeters wrote:
> But that said, all of the above go back to a previous cue or reset smoothly.

OK, I am lost again. If you do a Go previous cue (or step), it goes 
back nice and smoothly (but maybe too slow for you), and the same is 
true for Go next cue.

So, if I understand it correctly, you only want another set of Go 
previous cue, with a fixed 3 sec fade time (or maybe using the manual 
fade time)?

If other theatre customers have no objections, maybe we can change 
the "Go previous cue" so it uses the manual fade time, unless it's 
off (then it uses the scene step fade time as it is now).

Would that solve your problem?

Question: what should happen when this previous cue is a split fade 
one? Just going back one step with a normal cross fade of manual 
speed, or change fade in and out both to manual speed?



> Brings me to something else, that might be more logical to you, and 
> could also solve my problem.
> Maybe it comes down to the fact that the Lanbox uses the "crossfade 
> time" of the previous cuestep it goes to,

No, it uses the fade time of the cue you are Going to.


> and I think it more logical to use the "crossfade time" of the 
> cuestep i've just called.
> Example: Cuestep 7 has a crossfade of 50s, it fades in smoothly, 
> during the following scene I make a mistake and go (to soon) to 
> cuestep 8 (for example, a blackout) which has a crossfadetime of 3s, 
> the stage goes dark, I press back and it doesn't crossfade back in 
> 3s but in 50s.
> I ask you, when and why would I want that?

A moving sweep e.g.: slowly (50sec) to the left, to the top (10sec), 
fast (3sec) to the right, and now bounce back (so reverse the path).


> Thanx for the advice, but it only works with long fades, if I use 
> this back-macro on a 5 sec crossfade, I'll be back in under a 
> second, might as well be zero then.
> If I'm in the next cue I'm not going to remember how long the last 
> crossfade was.

Yep, you are correct, bad idea :-)


> As I understand it I'ts not a keystroke system as such, but a utilty 
> to make your own keymaps, so I think it very weird it doesn't work, 
> LCEdit works on french azerty boards too i presume?

No have no idea how complicated keys are, but I believe it's working 
(with restrictions) since v3.3.



> (but maybe the k is in the same spot then). Could you maybe delve 
> into what the problem is? This would really help me.

I'll have a look, but Ukelele looks very complicated to me.


> But seriously, Logic has done it all along hasn't it, I never heard 
> anyone complaining about that.
> I think such a versatile tool as the Lanbox should be flexible to 
> use for everyones needs and (especially in combination with isadora) 
> its far ahead in that already.

Again, it's -extremely- difficult to get full control on keys under 
current OSes, unless you create your own user interface like games, 
and Audio/video programs.


> Might seem like I'm a smartass theatertech that wants to have it his 
> own way (and I am, hahaha :))
> But the heart of the matter is that these two things (and possibly a 
> cuelist in %) are the major barrier for me to really fullhartedly 
> recommend the Lanbox to other theatertechs looking for a system of 
> their own to do tours with, because it is sometimes a bit cumbersome 
> to use in theatersituations.

Some things (like the %), looks simple, but cost a huge amount of 
time. We lost about 9 months only in porting LCedit+ to the newest 
framework/compiler, so we can compile to Linux, and Intel Mac 
hopefully this year. So it's all a matter of choices, but keeping up 
with new developments in the platforms has a higher priority.



> I really love the Lanbox and LCEdit, and I'd like to help make  it 
> just that bit more theater friendly.
>
> Hope you'll support me in that

Yes, but it takes time :-)

Regards,

--
Fokko van Duin,             
CDS advanced technology bv,          
http://www.lanbox.com/