do we still need sequence function?
-
Joe
Where is the loop option for a sequence? Seems a much better way to program in movements for scanners, but it doesn't really work if there is no loop.
-
giacomo
I had a similar problem of Joe (and few other of the points of Michael Clements) but I was believing that if the sequence has to become equivalent to a chaser in the possibilities then the distiction could have disappeared.
I was wrong because now they're implementing them, in the end this post has been somehow useful.
It's almost Easter and I'd like to be in peace with all you guys.
I really haven't appreciate being accused of demolishing houses or to not be a democratic person.
Isn't my first sentence asking if someone is still using the sequences?
If the answer is affirmative the post is answered.
I confirm that I'm not using the show manager, is it still allowed to do a mistake here?
2 statements I have to disagree with Massimo:
I'm really aware that qlc+ has not to be like other software and because of this reason in the past year I've asked just for 2 or 3 features, one was last summer, to ask for the patch, the second was for a waiting and a delay time in the cue list, more than one year ago (this has been rejected) and the third, but I don't remeber right now, was for the fixture groups. Without the first 2 features I couldn't even think to propose qlc+ in a professional theatre envinronment.
Second, I find not usefull that qlc+ has to invert the meaning of concepts established in the lighting world, chaser vs cue list, but I guess this is mostly an heritage from the original qlc than a choice of Massimo.
Have a good week and peace
giacomo
I was wrong because now they're implementing them, in the end this post has been somehow useful.
It's almost Easter and I'd like to be in peace with all you guys.
I really haven't appreciate being accused of demolishing houses or to not be a democratic person.
Isn't my first sentence asking if someone is still using the sequences?
If the answer is affirmative the post is answered.
I confirm that I'm not using the show manager, is it still allowed to do a mistake here?
2 statements I have to disagree with Massimo:
I'm really aware that qlc+ has not to be like other software and because of this reason in the past year I've asked just for 2 or 3 features, one was last summer, to ask for the patch, the second was for a waiting and a delay time in the cue list, more than one year ago (this has been rejected) and the third, but I don't remeber right now, was for the fixture groups. Without the first 2 features I couldn't even think to propose qlc+ in a professional theatre envinronment.
Second, I find not usefull that qlc+ has to invert the meaning of concepts established in the lighting world, chaser vs cue list, but I guess this is mostly an heritage from the original qlc than a choice of Massimo.
Have a good week and peace
giacomo
-
Massimo Callegari
Giacomo, now that the temperature has fallen here, I come in peace too.
Your support in the past has been precious, especially for the cross-fading and live editing, so I got surprised when you came out with this proposal of removing sequences.
I am not a lighting expert so the terminology used by QLC+ might not respect the common language used by lighting technicians since many years.
However, this might not stop someone to have the curiosity to learn a new way to design a light show or new words to name a functionality.
Chasers are a QLC inheritance. Honestly I don't even know what chaser mean. in fact I haven't even translated it in italian.
I chose "sequence" one year and a half ago cause nothing better came in my mind at that time.
Regarding requests, I know many of you asked for the "wait" time on Chaser steps. It's not rejected. It's just a major change to do.
Since I am the collector of each request, I have the responsibility of choosing what can be the best for everyone. QLC+ has many different usages so I do not concentrate on a single one, but I try to mediate between every need and hope to make everybody happy.
This of course doesn't happen, since every user understands only the part they use, so they complain when something is not like they expect.
For example the changes for live editing, broke some scenes of my band's project. I don't complain, cause if live editing makes 100 users happy then for a greater good I will find another way to fix my problems.
As for documentation, I am aware sometimes it lacks of details, but since I spend most of my time coding new features or fixing existing ones, you have to be patient with it and eventually ask nicely for improvements with constructive proposals.
On the other hand, I think you can count on your fingers the number of non-profit open source projects with 130 pages of documentation. (and more than 2 hours of video tutorials)
Most of them just leave it to forums or users self-learning.
To conclude, my goal is to make everybody happy and bring QLC+ to a competitive level. In my opinion, complaining about this project is useless. It just discourages me to do better than this.
Your support in the past has been precious, especially for the cross-fading and live editing, so I got surprised when you came out with this proposal of removing sequences.
I am not a lighting expert so the terminology used by QLC+ might not respect the common language used by lighting technicians since many years.
However, this might not stop someone to have the curiosity to learn a new way to design a light show or new words to name a functionality.
Chasers are a QLC inheritance. Honestly I don't even know what chaser mean. in fact I haven't even translated it in italian.
I chose "sequence" one year and a half ago cause nothing better came in my mind at that time.
Regarding requests, I know many of you asked for the "wait" time on Chaser steps. It's not rejected. It's just a major change to do.
Since I am the collector of each request, I have the responsibility of choosing what can be the best for everyone. QLC+ has many different usages so I do not concentrate on a single one, but I try to mediate between every need and hope to make everybody happy.
This of course doesn't happen, since every user understands only the part they use, so they complain when something is not like they expect.
For example the changes for live editing, broke some scenes of my band's project. I don't complain, cause if live editing makes 100 users happy then for a greater good I will find another way to fix my problems.
As for documentation, I am aware sometimes it lacks of details, but since I spend most of my time coding new features or fixing existing ones, you have to be patient with it and eventually ask nicely for improvements with constructive proposals.
On the other hand, I think you can count on your fingers the number of non-profit open source projects with 130 pages of documentation. (and more than 2 hours of video tutorials)
Most of them just leave it to forums or users self-learning.
To conclude, my goal is to make everybody happy and bring QLC+ to a competitive level. In my opinion, complaining about this project is useless. It just discourages me to do better than this.