Q Light Controller+

Hello, soon in September 2019 and still no output usable for Qlc + 5 I give up much too long to release your software. I will continue to use freestyler to see to find another more pro solution for the management of our lights. I will come back to you in 3 or 4 years

dude - how rude ...

I accidentally closed a window - I admit
not being able to 'ear-wash' you...

v5 is alpha, you accepted the terms.

Enjoy Freestyler and report back how .v5 can become better in 2031-and-a-halve?

i'm just saying qlc5's design is too long the designer goes on too much track at the same time rather than doing it step by step. for professional use it's not too good. I have browsed a lot of page on the forum and very often the designer refuses the hands of the surfer. example on the creation of a manual that would help the handling that is not found in a wiki. pity because I think it's a good software. cordially

Voila question ouverte en septembre 2019 et nous sommes en decembre 2020 et toujours rien ce logiciel est comme le covid19 il traine il traine bon courage je reviens vers vous en decembre 2021 ??????????

I'll be a little more blunt ...

See you later, you won't be missed

Oh no!!! This totally free software isn't movin fast enough for a "pro". LoL. Qlc4 is an amazing piece of software and I'm sure qlc5 will be better. Hammering a guy who does this type of work for nothing is pretty low ...

lobelzar wrote: ↑Tue Sep 24, 2019 9:00 am Hello, soon in September 2019 and still no output usable for Qlc + 5 I give up much too long to release your software. I will continue to use freestyler to see to find another more pro solution for the management of our lights. I will come back to you in 3 or 4 years

What you mean with "management"?
Creating a scene with freestyler is a pain. It miss a general bank like qlc+, it's full of micro buttons, there is no clear difference between functions. Qlc+ has a 100 times better user experience than freestyler. I forgot also the "almost-secret" midi section (explained nowhere!!!!) In FS. Gotta learn spanish and watch tutorials in order to learn something.
With qlc+ (v4) you find everything fast in the right place

I agree with the original poster. I am also frustrated with the lack of progress on this. I am a mobile DJ and would gladly pay $100 to purchase this software to help hire developers to move this along. V4 is great software and I love it. But I've out grown V4 and like some of the features that V5 is claiming to bring to the table. However the Alpha version is to unstable for active use. and it's been over 3 years from the introduction / announcement of the V5 version. Make V5 have a purchase fee and hire some coders to help with workload and production. If the price is reasonable I'm sure most people would gladly pay it. I understand doing this isn't easy but you've created a following, teased new software, teased new features. But have taken what seems like a extended amount of time to develop it.

I have been looking forward to having and assigning multi-inputs to commands on a single output. Ie. (Midi input from USB control surface & Data from OSLDirect from VDJ). I can not seem to figure out how to get this working in V4 or if it's even possible. So just my two sense I ma just saying I understand the frustration of wanting the new software and it not having any updates.

Thanks. Trying to patiently wait.

Hello All!

I will happily wait for v5, although I'm also eager to see v5 hit beta or RC.

I'm short of funds right now, but I was thinking on donating $100.00 USD when I'm in a better position financially. I haven't been paid in a few months, but that will be fixed very soon. I see the value in QLC+, and after trying FreeStyler (after QLC+) and was turned off of it, I am committed to QLC+.

michilson wrote: ↑Fri May 28, 2021 5:55 pm I have been looking forward to having and assigning multi-inputs to commands on a single output. Ie. (Midi input from USB control surface & Data from OSLDirect from VDJ). I can not seem to figure out how to get this working in V4 or if it's even possible.

FYI: you can use multiple inputs in v4... create as many universes as you like and assign inputs to them. Explaining is off-topic, so search a bit and if in doubt create a new thread.

We should recognize that the project is staling and I even don't think it's a question of money, we had already a crowdfunding 3 years ago and it didn't get anywere.
I'm another one frustrated too and I'm not sure if I'll use qlcplus 4 again, it requires too much time and it lacks many basic functions, saddly I've lost interest in it.

Thanks everyone for the -not nice- comments in this thread.

If you want me to release shit, fine, I will release shit.
I think you're all just attempting to create a new excuse for more complains with the "5 is better than 4".
V5 will not solve all your problems.
It will actually introduce new issues, will change your workflow and will be missing a lot of V4 features.

As for stalling, here's the project activity: https://github.com/mcallegari/qlcplus/commits/master
I work on QLC+ when I can. Again, I too have a life.
Crowdfunding was for 3D, not the whole v5. And again, I explained that the guy left the project (for personal reasons). I am still looking for another developer to pick up where he left. The statement "didn't get anywhere" is unfair since I showed two videos of "where it got".

Please don't say bullshit. Be realistic.

I would particularly like QLC+ 5 to be completed. But I think QLC+ 4 is a very good tool and mature enough to use it in my projects.
In the last years, I've tried to test other DMX control programs for theatre and concerts, and none of them have convinced me. As a Linux-only user for me the best solution is QLC+ 4.

Good work Massimo

that's it Santiago,
everybody would like to see qlcplus5 because qlcplus4 - a very good and stable software - it's becoming obsolete and we should be realistic about this aspect too.
we all agree that the interface and process in qlcplus4 is not meant for a live stage production and this was one of the goals of qlcplus5 development.
so I'm really glad to hear that is not stalling because yesterday was the 3rd anniversary of the crowdfunding and since the 2018 we haven't seen any new post from Massimo.

I find the negativity to be rather inconsiderate. Having read a lot of the posts and news on this website, I understand that Massimo's life has become rather busy. His job pays the bills. QLC+ does not. And we can thank his employer for allowing him work on QLC+ in spite of the potential conflict of interest.

We are fortunate to have free software that people are willing to put time and effort in to develop. If it weren't for people like Massimo and the other contributors, QLC would have died off a long time ago, and QLC+ may never have see the light of day.

Having evaluated a lot of DMX programs, asking lots of questions, waiting for representatives to reply, watching demos, sure, there are some terrific programs out there, some with a lot of terrific features and ideas, but they have a high cost associated with them. Either the software is expensive, or is tied to certain expensive interfaces. It's certainly a fringe interest that most people don't even know about, so it's hard for someone to come into the DMX space and develop or innovate without it either being a passion (read: usually works for free), or something to help sell something else (read: usually expects to get paid). Each program is meant to be different, and each are good for various use-cases. QLC+ is great for my purposes.

I think appreciation would be a better way to encourage further development and grow the community. Complaining about the rate of development progress only serves to undermine the community.

People get busy, and development will occasionally slow down, sometimes for a short period of time, sometimes longer.

I look at it this way, free software doesn't owe me anything. I chose to use it. I chose to discard it when it no longer meets my needs. I don't complain about it. I am thankful that it was a part of my workflow. If I don't like the direction or pace something is going, I'll make positive suggestions. If there's an opportunity for me to help out in some way, I'll offer it. It doesn't matter if I pay a donation, or contribute to a fundraiser to build-out a new feature. I'm owed nothing.

Massimo, thank you for taking QLC+ as far as you have. I look forward to what the future holds for QLC+. I read your forums, and check for code commits almost daily. I can muddle my way through software development not too badly; if I felt I could contribute to the project with quality code, I would do it in a heartbeat.

I am really enjoying QLC+ v4. I have turned my basement into a nightclub. All my friends, family, co-workers, and customers are thoroughly impressed. Your software is at the heart of that success.

I hope the negativity doesn't dissuade you from further development.

Galls / Guys,

I have to 2nd that what Tristan wrote.
As you know, I'm taking the task to support this forum - sometimes more time consuming than I would like, but hey: this is my kind of contribution to this wonderful and useful project.
Thanks to QLC+ v4 I have realised quite some successful projects for free. Moreover, I even have used it on paid occasions and when there is a royal project budget, I do donate time after time. I consider it a 'usage-fee'. Recon €20-30 per usage.
I donated this morning, again, because I realised quite a nifty project based on a Raspberry Pi and some hardware. When it may be publicised, I'll show you... It's a project for a known Belgian radio station to support their presence during the summer somewhere... The only reason I got this project in my portfolio, is/was the existence of QLC+. Competition is furious that I could realise it well beyond their quoted price. (and my quote was in the range of a 1/2 average monthly income... so do the maths.)
Could I have realised this, without a thorough knowledge of what can and what can't be done with QLC+? No! So my free efforts supporting this forum does have paid in the end.

If QLC+ would have more multimedia power, this would be even greater, but it is a lighting desk and not a media centre of some kind. And I'm more than happy with it.

I understand that we've all different experiences and expectations from an open source project,
in my case qlcplus has never been a free economical alternative to accomplish something and I've been interested in the concept of open source and in the community around it, with all its interesting ideas.
After all these years I was hoping that it could have evolved is something more usable for everybody, we were all hoping and I don't understand the "scandal" to recognize it.
So to open a bit the discussion for the "positive" comments, for other people the project was not only about our little personal business and maybe your attitude is not productive as well, if you like listen to this talk from inkscape's developper (eg. charitable paternalism model):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCgXFgHNkdI
Finally, it's normal that Massimo do not have time or interest in it anymore after all these years, maybe there will be a different solution to it, nonetheless can we express our worries and/or frustrations?
It seems a dogma here!

Yes simply pass the hand Too long why? an example of 3d development and many who actually use it in production the vast majority of users use the software live to actually see what the lights look like on stage. Ask the question on the forum of other software such as FREESTYLER dmx and in reality very few people use 3d. No, for me development goes in too many different directions. There are a lot of things like the software is not finished and well we can't use them. For me Mcallegari should validate the functions one by one for the software to work and each new function would be added piecemeal

I am a new comer to your QLC+ Soft wear and find it a breathe of fresh air in DMX programming. I come from a theater environment with $20 + thousand lighting consoles. Free QLC+ is a real competitor for many of the things I can do with commercial light boards. In fact I am on the QLC+ Because our light board has crashed and is in repair for 2 plus weeks. Version 4 is going to fill the gap since I have several Enntec DMX pros and I have control of our 4 universes again, since the shows don’t stop. I am concerned about the negative comments. Please take them with a grain of salt. Some people have no idea how much work, trial and error, sweat and time is involved in this complicated program. I have installed QLC+ version 5 and find it amazingly easy to learn and use so far. It will be a fantastic light control program when completed. Thank you for all your hard work in getting it to its present state.
One bug I found in my short time with the. Software is when I chose some generic dimmers, selected them and selected the light bulb for intensity all worked fine, but if I selected the intensity icon without selecting the fixture icons the program would just terminate. Hope that helps a little. Looking forward to a stable version 5 in the future.

Me to looks very good so far and hopefully it will have the possibility to start the tracks with backspace likely in the 4 versions for mac