Thru Thru

not to light a fire here, but my boss and I were talking about this and went back and looked at the thru function with flexi on the obsession OLE. The syntax for EOS has not changed from what it was doing in obsession land.

Ryan said:

Why did you people make the thru syntax different????

using [thru] [thru] on the obession II breaks the flexi state if you are using it. Using [thru] only selects the channels being displayed by the flexi state.

after much discussion, we both would like to see it stay the way it is, or turn it into a desk setting.

It's been many years since I used an Obsession, but isn't flexi always the same state for the designer (on an RVI) and the operator?  I think the main area of confusion for the EOS arises when the flexi states differ for designer and operator.

My vote is for [thru] to always select the range of channels, irrespective of flexi state.

-Todd

Todd, will this still be your opinion when mirror mode is released (1.8), which mimics the displays of the programmer on the RVI?  Just askin'.

Thanks!!

a

Speaking as a console savvy designer, what's tricky is that the designer who know how to take advantage of thru and thru-thru would be the same designer who doesn't use mirror mode.

One thing to throw out there -- is there ever a situation where one would want to bring up unpatched channels?  Could one of the thru options always exclude them?  Doesn't really help with show channels flexi.

To respond to Brandon:

I actually do think it is the designers responsibility to learn about console technology, at least for conventional programming.  The more I know about what a console can do, the faster I can respond to the stage, and the better the design.  From my experience, the generation of designers who saw the emergence of tracking consoles became quite familiar with the syntax.  Additionally, if I assist a designer who has been too busy to keep up, I feel It's my responsibility to help bridge the gap.  Just my personal opinion, and not necessarily that of the majority of ETC's customers.

In terms of rep plots, when I was doing large scale rep opera, the shows were channeled by position, and every light always had a channel.  That way we could quickly add an unused light during rehearsal without worrying about patch (or unit number for that matter).  Even spare dimmers were patched to channels in their positions.  Maybe 10% of the show had a special patch.

Having just worked in a small rep house, lights used for both shows kept the same channels while lights with a rep re-plug had unique, non-overlapping channels.  This just kept the paperwork cleaner and changeovers easier to error check.

-Josh

Anne,

Even with mirror mode, I think that the basic function of [thru] should not depend upon flexi state.  If the operator and designer are looking at the same display with mirror mode, then it's easier for the designer to express exactly what they want - [thru] or [thru][thru] depending upon the current flexi state.  Otherwise, it's another conversation that needs to happen - "are you in show flexi or active flexi?" "okay then 1 thru thru 10"

This is a tough nut to crack, and it's going to require some training of designers as well as operators.  There's obviously no one solution that is ideal for the way that everyone works. I just think it is easier to have the shortest command line reflect the lowest common denominator- [thru] means all of the channels from X to Y, inclusive.

That said, if [thru][thru] was to depend on the flexi state, could it post that state to the command line?  Like:

• 1 thru (show) 10
• 1 thru (active) 10

where the (show) or (active) is posted with the second press of [thru]?  This way the designer and operator (assuming they are using the same user # and sharing the command line) can see what flexi state is modifying the command.

Just my opinion - does that help?

-Todd

As a "console savvy designer" which I guess is what i'd be called, and someone who works with both very accomplished programmers (some who are on this forum) and some Eos novices, I think that [thru] should absolute. not to be snarky but in any other logic thru means thru.

1 [thru] 10 should be exactly that regardless of how you are viewing it.

now the difference between [thru] [thru] being used for flexi view or as select active is another thing entirely.  I think both are very useful functions.

enjoy

J

As a "console savvy designer" which I guess is what i'd be called, and someone who works with both very accomplished programmers (some who are on this forum) and some Eos novices, I think that [thru] should absolute. not to be snarky but in any other logic thru means thru.

1 [thru] 10 should be exactly that regardless of how you are viewing it.

now the difference between [thru] [thru] being used for flexi view or as select active is another thing entirely.  I think both are very useful functions.

enjoy

J

I just finished programming my first "big" lighting show on Eos coming from a 500 series background. I did this show using Patched channels flexi as my primary channel selection flexi and had a secondary Active Channels flexi above the CIA.  Because of working in Patched channels, I did not get caught out by this behavior.  I can see the logic carrying on from Next and Last behavior, but I think I'm with the reversal camp on this.  Thru should mean thru regardless of what you are viewing.

 Most designers that I've worked with don't really care about what view I have on my screen, but when they say "1 thru 10 at 50" or "151 thru 156 at 60" they will expect every channel to come up regardless of whether it is active or not.  If they only want the active channels, they will say, "take everything from 1 to 20 up a point", which is a classic case for "Select Active".

I just think "thru" is too easy to screw up if it depends on which flexi view you are in. I vote to reverse the functionality, but then again I work in Patched Channels, so it won't bother me if it stays the same.

My tuppence, 

Kevin