Thru Thru

I have to agree with Crispy Nick and Sarah, coming from a large rep house the thru thru is very useful, however, if thru and thru thru swapped, I could adjust.

Ed

I definitely vote for Thru having absolute behavior, with Thru Thru being flexi specific. Not the least reason being that if one is in flexi-active (or flexi-show, or flexi-view chans) and grabs a channel outside of the currently selected view the desk will grab *all* of those channels in the Thru range, which, I think, is inconsistent even with the intent of the current behavior.

-M

I agree with this, thru should capture all channels

Thru thru captures all displayed

And Nick I have only programmed on an Eos.  I have just gotten used to Active display because my rig changes for every different show we do at the Los Angeles Opera.  Ever since I started with 1.2 I have used Active and Patched displays.  Like most others I too delete my un-used channels

What ever Etc decides I will adjust

I've been following this as well and i'm on the fence about it.I'm partial to keeping it the way it is. I would not be against it becoming a desk setting rather than making the change whole. Giving the operator the option seems like the more logical solution to me.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, it's been awile since i've had n Obsession II  in front of me. Wasn't the behavior the same when you were in a Flexi state on an OB II??

I’m another one who is happy with things the way they are at the moment!

I confess I’ve never been a user of Active Channels, nor of Strand’s Compact view, even before I started working in a rep house – like Josh & Nick I like to know where on the screen I’m looking for each channel.

I now mostly use Show Channels or Patched Channels & it all works fine for me.

Just my selfish opinion, but I find it counter-intuitive to suggest that the simple version (single press) deals with “hidden” channels, and the double press would be the way to deal with what you’re actually seeing.

Kate

Cottesloe Theatre

National Theatre

I've often said that these consoles are the coolest when you are programming your own show.  I think this issue is related to that.  I'm still amazed at what I can do and what I'm learning to do, but it's hard get a designer to get enthusiastically invested in learning all of the tricks the board can do.  Especially when every venue has a different console.  It's not their job and I wouldn't fault them but we still have to be able to agree on the language we use.  I am only now just beginning to make headway on getting them to accept and use [Thru Select Active] which sounds kind of clunky.  Again, sometimes its hard to get them to a point where caring about the difference between Thru or Thru Thru gets high on their priority list during tech week.  I can just imagine trying to explain that now, just because I'm running in something called "Flexi Active Channel" so that it makes it quicker to tell them what channel so and so is on page three [this by the way, becuase we don't have mirror mode], they have to think about the difference between Thru Thru and Thru each time they call a sequence.  They already glaze over at me after they've heard "EOS ION RPU RVI RFR iRFR and ETC" spouted out through the day. 

On the other hand,  I can see the utilility of this feature when you are pushing your own buttons, looking at your own screen, calling your own channels.  Or working for a designer who comes from a programming background.

I mentioned before that I found myself working in Flexi Active out of the need for Mirror Mode.  I used to really like All Channels with unpatched channels deleted, thereby learning channel systems by geography.  Lately, I've come around to using Patched Channels.  With one screen of playback, and two screens of channels, it never crossed my mind to use more than one Live screen at a time.  Though, now it occurs to me, that I have a fourth screen from the nearby RPU that I could put on Flexi Active, and not have to worry about it.

I guess in the end, I can live with it either way.  As it stands now, I just need to stay out of Flexi Active Channels while programming for someone else.  Remembering that a lot of designers don't want be bothered by that stuff.  Plus, mirror mode will be here with v1.8 in ten days, right?...  Right?

Oh yeah, could someone help me out with the "Large Rep Plot" scenario?  I know that I'm missing the obvious, but I would think that each show would have a specific patch that makes sense to each designer.  

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

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

As someone that has not yet programmed an EOS/ION, but am sure I will someday, I would like to put in my $.02.  First of all I would like some clarification of the current functions of the different syntaxes.

x (thru) y = selects all channels on the programming desk's active view between x and y

x (thru) (thru) y = selects all channels between x and y regardless of view or patch

x (thru) (select active) y = selects all channels on the programming desk's active view between x and y that currently have a value

Someone please correct me if I am wrong.  I bring up (select active) because I think some people here have been wanting (thru) (thru) to mean (thru on) [from Strand talk].  Now, in my opinion, the confusion here arises from the many different flexichannel views available today and the rise of many different monitors with multiple displays, NOT the actual function of the (thru) button.  If I recall from the "good old days" of Express(ion) land, there were only 2 different Stage displays possible, normal and flexichannel, and it's impossible to have them both at the same time on different monitors.  If you used flexichannel it would display all of the channels that had a value recorded in a cue of the current show file.  Now, when you were in flexichannel and you hit the (thru) button it would only include the channels that were in the flexi.  Because there was no (thru) (thru), if you wanted to select a channel that wasn't displayed, you keyed it in.  This was never confusing for anyone because the RVI would never display anything different than what the programmer was seeing.  There was no (thru on) or (select active) to worry about (unfortunately), so if the designer looked at the screen and says thru then s/he meant thru.

In conclusion :-D, if I am correct, and please tell me if I have gotten something wrong, the function of (thru) has not at all changed.  With the addition of (thru) (thru), ETC is simply trying to give the user options.  Just like the many new flexi views and multiple monitor displays.  These are all new and exciting, and hopefully, helpful utilities that ETC is making available to us.  However, with them, comes added responsibility for the user.  It is our responsibility to communicate with the designer to make sure we are using the same display, or if not, how we are going to communicate with each other.  It is our responsibility to know which of our displays is active when we type something into the command line.

/end rant

-Tim

You are close, but Expression 2/3 and Obsession II (and I believe I as well) did have the [Thru][Thru] syntax to mean all channels - [Thru] did only follow one's flexi mode. In other words, they were the same in concept to Eos 1.7's implementation.

But you are correct - there was only "Show Channels" flexi on these desks.

-luke-