i have four moving heads. on two of the movers the X axis on mydmx visualizer will show the lights moving one direction but the actual light moves the opposite direction. the Y axis tracks correctly.
any suggestions?
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
on your fixture is it on reverse pan or tilt? On the profile was the pan and tilt angles correctly specified? All these things can mess with the orientation in the 3D. It is not possible to get 100% accurate 3D viz.
Sincerely,
Sincerely,
First off, are these identical fixtures? If so, check your settings.
On my Chauvet Q-Spot 150's, I chose to orient the lights and configure them so they also match(as best as possble) in the 3D Visualizer. I documented them with label tape on the fixture to save time in the future.
Jingles is right. The 3D Visualizer is not 100% accurate. I find it sufficient enough though for doing my lighting design work though. For me, that's good enough.
On my Chauvet Q-Spot 150's, I chose to orient the lights and configure them so they also match(as best as possble) in the 3D Visualizer. I documented them with label tape on the fixture to save time in the future.
Jingles is right. The 3D Visualizer is not 100% accurate. I find it sufficient enough though for doing my lighting design work though. For me, that's good enough.
This should go kinda without saying but I'll say it anyways......ALWAYS program exact pan and tilt positions with the actual lights plugged in and running dmx from the program. NEVER rely solely on the 3D. It will let you down every time in some small way. Trust me tried and tested. Chris can tell you the advantages of the 3D though, he uses it more practical than me. 
Sincerely,
Sincerely,
I agree with that, about 90%
In my show that I am working on, something isn't right. I think I have the stage dimensions wrong or something. I don't think it matches what the actuality is. I also think other dimensions I am using are NOT accurate either.(room width, ceiling height)
When using my movers, I programmed several scenes where they point to certain areas. One in particular, the actress is supposed to be lowered, but that's not practical, so she's connected and raised while the stage is dark, and the movers are supposed to track her complete lowering, coming off wire, some movement(they need to do more movement), then back on wire, up again, then hold and a rapid down. It looks fantastic in the 3D Visualizer, but it is WAY off in reality. IN actuality, I just had the follow spot operators handle the whole scene, which was fine, the follow spots were programmed to do that anyways, and the operators did their job just fine.
Another scene, I have the movers aim OUT(no problem), but then they swing to IN and UP. Happy error: they meet in the middle and the rotating gobo turns out to be super cool. But for this scene, placement wasn't critical.
It is not practical to program lights unless you're in the environment. In which case, you want to get your concept down offline, then fine-tune your programming once you're in the venue. Take notes, know which scenes you need to tweek on sight so as to not waste a lot of time.
Other scenes where movement is key but not so much the aiming is a scene where the "cops" enter the area. I aim the movers OUT to help them see where they are going, then the movers aim up doing out of phase circles, one red, one blue. Another scene involves a mover acting as a beacon. Another scene involves emulating a helicopter search light.
Other scenes require me to hit a target on the stage(like a desk or something not moving much. I won't go into those scenes, there are other issues that are mostly oversights by me.
I can agree that the 3D Visualizer, if I relied solely on that, will let me down every time for movement being EXACT.
Do what you can, notate which ones need fine tuning on-site and you'll be good to go.
Regardless of the let-downs of the 3D Visualizer, I won't stop using it. I can't visualize lighting so it really helps me get the job done to a point where I can feel comfortable and even generate animatics. For proof of concept, it's a fantastic tool. Combined with FRAPS or SNAGIT, it becomes a very powerful tool to help create items that can be watched by others to help speed along approvals. Using the 3D Visualizer and SNAGIT, I generated an animatic of the entire show, which the director did her job and went over it with a fine toothed comb to find out ERRORS or CHANGES that were not in my script. Corrections were made and things were good to go.
Think of the 3D Visualizer as a starting point and reference tool. If you're close there, you'll be in the ballpark for real and saving you lots of time on-site.
In my show that I am working on, something isn't right. I think I have the stage dimensions wrong or something. I don't think it matches what the actuality is. I also think other dimensions I am using are NOT accurate either.(room width, ceiling height)
When using my movers, I programmed several scenes where they point to certain areas. One in particular, the actress is supposed to be lowered, but that's not practical, so she's connected and raised while the stage is dark, and the movers are supposed to track her complete lowering, coming off wire, some movement(they need to do more movement), then back on wire, up again, then hold and a rapid down. It looks fantastic in the 3D Visualizer, but it is WAY off in reality. IN actuality, I just had the follow spot operators handle the whole scene, which was fine, the follow spots were programmed to do that anyways, and the operators did their job just fine.
Another scene, I have the movers aim OUT(no problem), but then they swing to IN and UP. Happy error: they meet in the middle and the rotating gobo turns out to be super cool. But for this scene, placement wasn't critical.
It is not practical to program lights unless you're in the environment. In which case, you want to get your concept down offline, then fine-tune your programming once you're in the venue. Take notes, know which scenes you need to tweek on sight so as to not waste a lot of time.
Other scenes where movement is key but not so much the aiming is a scene where the "cops" enter the area. I aim the movers OUT to help them see where they are going, then the movers aim up doing out of phase circles, one red, one blue. Another scene involves a mover acting as a beacon. Another scene involves emulating a helicopter search light.
Other scenes require me to hit a target on the stage(like a desk or something not moving much. I won't go into those scenes, there are other issues that are mostly oversights by me.
I can agree that the 3D Visualizer, if I relied solely on that, will let me down every time for movement being EXACT.
Do what you can, notate which ones need fine tuning on-site and you'll be good to go.
Regardless of the let-downs of the 3D Visualizer, I won't stop using it. I can't visualize lighting so it really helps me get the job done to a point where I can feel comfortable and even generate animatics. For proof of concept, it's a fantastic tool. Combined with FRAPS or SNAGIT, it becomes a very powerful tool to help create items that can be watched by others to help speed along approvals. Using the 3D Visualizer and SNAGIT, I generated an animatic of the entire show, which the director did her job and went over it with a fine toothed comb to find out ERRORS or CHANGES that were not in my script. Corrections were made and things were good to go.
Think of the 3D Visualizer as a starting point and reference tool. If you're close there, you'll be in the ballpark for real and saving you lots of time on-site.