Spot Tracking

I quickly made a demo of this, using no 3rd party software, just A3D, an SEM, and some focus palettes.

The broad strokes -- I had my rig in A3D, and my yellow brick road drawn out.

I made an SEM (Channel 11) and nested an A3D person object in it (from the library).

I recorded two focus palettes, the start point and end point of where the yellow brick road started and ended and recorded channel 11 in it.

I made one focus palette (FP 11) that contained my six overhead units (CH 1-6) and linked it to SEM 11. With SEM focus palettes or presets, be mindful of what data you record, if you need a Z offset, I would selectively record just the A3D Z height from the fixtures into the profile, so as to not have the fixtures have an X/Y offset.

In cue 1, channel 11 is at its start (FP1), channels 1-6 are at full in FP 11 (the tracking focus palette).

In cue 2, channel 11 is at the end point (FP2), channels 1-6 are unchanged.

Add cues/focus palettes if the path is non linear, but this shouldn't take much time at all to set up and with a well-calibrated A3D model, it works great.

Let me know if you need any additional info, I'm happy to share a more in-depth video of setting it up.

The cues in action: https://youtu.be/9THK20NdLqI

File: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/ppvknd5mmx4k4spgf81on/Yellow-Brick-Road-Demo-2024-09-29-13-57-39.esf3d?rlkey=9xkkl64j8b5lfuxgjhmtio2g9&dl=0

What if the yellow brick road is curved and you don't want jagged, robotic motion?

What if you want it to start slow and end slow instead of stopping hard and going at a constant velocity?

I replicated your video in 5 minutes, but my yellow brick road has 20 twists and turns and I'm able to effortlessly control the walking speed the whole way. I get not wanting to have to download 3rd party software, but if you want more than the absolute bare minimum control authority, you have to. At least until ETC takes their software out of the 1990's.

Yellow brick road with 20 twists and turns and with smooth speed ramping: www.youtube.com/watch

You can adjust cue timing to ramp between points, adjust follow timing to determine when one preset overrides the next; it's no graphic linear editor, but it's all doable from within the console. You can also apply curves to cues (and cue parts) depending on what you need to do. In the Eos only method, you could even cut out the SEMs, and just make sure your lights are set to XYZ (instead of Pan/Tilt) for the cues in which you need tracking, which would probably be the better solution in most cases.

Both methods still require a background knowledge of SEMs, A3D, and linking the SEM to a reference palette.

Respectfully, I don't think a yellow brick road measuring contest is necessary. I just want to illustrate that this is doable from within the Eos software without investing too much time or energy.

On almost every musical I have programmed since A3D has come out, I've tracked a performer or clump of dancers using XYZ focus because they were moving in a non-linear way and its turned out great.

It's about

1. Number of steps
2. Scalability
3. Intuitiveness
4. Ease of editing later
5. Ability to quickly understand how it works
6. Quality of end result

With the curve engine, you have:

1. Smallest possible number of steps
2. Extremely scalable
3. Extremely intuitive noce you learn some basics
4. Extremely easy to edit later
5. Can glance at it and understand exactly how it's set up
6. Highest possible quality of end result

Without the curve engine:

1. A ton of extra steps
2. Not very scalable since every point is an extra cue that must be created and timed
3. Somewhat intuitive but definitely not as simple as it could be
4. Somewhat easy to edit later, but edits can be complex
5. Cannot glance at it and understand how it's set up
6. Without extensive work, it will be robotic, so high quality is difficult, and moving in not a straight line is basically impossible

It's about

1. Number of steps
2. Scalability
3. Intuitiveness
4. Ease of editing later
5. Ability to quickly understand how it works
6. Quality of end result

With the curve engine, you have:

1. Smallest possible number of steps
2. Extremely scalable
3. Extremely intuitive noce you learn some basics
4. Extremely easy to edit later
5. Can glance at it and understand exactly how it's set up
6. Highest possible quality of end result

Without the curve engine:

1. A ton of extra steps
2. Not very scalable since every point is an extra cue that must be created and timed
3. Somewhat intuitive but definitely not as simple as it could be
4. Somewhat easy to edit later, but edits can be complex
5. Cannot glance at it and understand how it's set up
6. Without extensive work, it will be robotic, so high quality is difficult, and moving in not a straight line is basically impossible