GDTF and MVR

GDTF has gained DIN Spec status, not Standard, which actually means very little. The process is significantly less stringent, and doesn't require the public review that a true open standard requires. I have seen very little take up from manufacturers because of some of the significant failings in the current GDTF specification.

GDTF was developed behind closed doors, and thus wasn't subject to the public scrutiny that comes from a proper standards process. There is of course significant value in the goal of GDTF, but I'm afraid for all its marketing, it doesn't actually tick many of the boxes.

I think you are absolutely right about the current state of GDTF. I am afraid that if all the companies that are in the consortium take a wait-and-see approach nothing will happen. So ETC must either put its full weight behind it or withdraw. Otherwise they are part of the empty marketing hype.

I see a lot of promise in the concept and at this moment in time where more and more things are being tied together, it feels like the right moment for such a concept to effectively become a standard. Not one company could develop on its own a console, all the fixtures you need , a visualiser, a CAD program, etc. (Although ETC is on its way!)

I think you are absolutely right about the current state of GDTF. I am afraid that if all the companies that are in the consortium take a wait-and-see approach nothing will happen. So ETC must either put its full weight behind it or withdraw. Otherwise they are part of the empty marketing hype.

I see a lot of promise in the concept and at this moment in time where more and more things are being tied together, it feels like the right moment for such a concept to effectively become a standard. Not one company could develop on its own a console, all the fixtures you need , a visualiser, a CAD program, etc. (Although ETC is on its way!)