Jump to content
Did you know?
  • The original Rudolph did not have a red nose. In that day and age, red noses were seen as an indicator of chronic alcoholism and Montgomery Ward didn’t want him to look like a drunkard. To complete the original picture, he was almost named Reginald or Rollo.
  • The Christmas wreath was originally hung as a symbol of Jesus. The holly represents his crown of thorns and the red berries the blood he shed.
  • The three traditional colors of most Christmas decorations are red, green and gold. Red symbolizes the blood of Christ, green symbolized life and rebirth, and gold represents light, royalty and wealth.
  • Tinsel was invented in 1610 in Germany and was once made of real silver.
  • The oldest artificial Christmas trees date back to the late 1800s and were made of green raffia (think grass hula skirts) or dyed goose feathers. Next the Addis Brush Company used their machinery that wove toilet brushes to create pine-like branches for artificial Christmas trees that were less flammable and could hold heavier decorations.
  • ‘Jingle Bells’ – the popular Christmas song was composed by James Pierpont in Massachusetts, America. It was, however, written for thanksgiving and not Christmas.
  • Coca-Cola was the first company that used Santa Claus during the winter season for promotion.
  • Hallmark introduced their first Christmas cards in 1915.
  • The first recorded date of Christmas being celebrated on December 25th was in 336, during the time of the Roman Emperor Constantine. A few years later, Pope Julius I officially declared that the birth of Jesus would be celebrated on that day.
  • Santa Claus's sleigh is led by eight reindeer: Dasher, Dancer, Prancer, Vixen, Comet, Cupid, Dunder (variously spelled Donder and Donner), and Blixem (variously spelled Blixen and Blitzen), with Rudolph being a 20th-century inclusion.
  • Outdoor Christmas lights on homes evolved from decorating the traditional Christmas tree and house with candles during the Christmas season. Lighting the tree with small candles dates back to the 17th century and originated in Germany before spreading to Eastern Europe.
  • That big, jolly man in the red suit with a white beard didn’t always look that way. Prior to 1931, Santa was depicted as everything from a tall gaunt man to a spooky-looking elf. He has donned a bishop's robe and a Norse huntsman's animal skin. When Civil War cartoonist Thomas Nast drew Santa Claus for Harper's Weekly in 1862, Santa was a small elflike figure who supported the Union. Nast continued to draw Santa for 30 years, changing the color of his coat from tan to the red he’s known for today.
  • Christmas 2018 countdown has already begun. Will you be ready???
  • Why do we love Christmas? It's all about the traditions. In this chaotic world we can miss the "good old days." Christmas reminds us of that time.
TheBigE

LSP vs LOR S2

Recommended Posts

All,

I did some searching around on PC and found some answers, but no concise comparison between the LOR S2 and Light Show Pro (hard to use PC search engine if you use the word "Light" in your search...sheesh) I have gone through the LSP vendor forum and done some reading, and can see that there is a much more aggressive update schedule with LSP and appears to have a very responsive Customer Service mindset (Same is true with LOR IMO.) I also feel that with the "aggressive" update cycle of LSP any comparison done more than 6 months ago may not reflect todays version.

So that being said, I am looking for a good comparison of the two software suites. I currently have LOR S2 Basic plus and was planning an upgrade to Advanced (wanted to have some of the startup/shutdown functionality etc), and I have downloaded LSP trial version. I still consider myself a newbie in animated displays, as I started late last year and was able to tackle 16 channels display starting in Mid November. Because of the late start, I did not do any of my own sequencing in 2009. I had started one song, but just was never able to finiish it up to completion. 2010 will be a different story and one of my goals is to sequence all my own songs.

So considering I am essentially at the same point for both software programs, I would like to know what some of the "seasoned" veterans think about each. I will continue to experiment with both LSP and LOR S2, but feel that the real answer will come from long term use and flexibility of each program. Hard for me to evaluate this on a "trial" basis. From an investment standpoint, I am looking at about the same investment for each software (BP to Advanced upgrade) as LSP currently is running a 89.00 deal for the program. Also i will be running it on a MAC through parallels or Boot Camp, but do not expect any issues with computer operation.

Thanks for the input and looking forward to the responses

Erik

Edited by TheBigE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for a great question Erik, I'm in almost your same position, started at the end of '07 so i did do my own sequencing, but I'm looking at an upgrade too. One thing I have heard is that LSP has the capability to to RGB effects a little better than LOR which can be useful for things like firefli. I am curious to hear the responses though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd be particularly interested in hearing from folks who have done extensive work in both products.

Specific questions I have:

Does LSP have the concept of multiple tracks and/or timings?

How accurate is the conversion to/from LOR? Is it feasible to do some work in LSP, then do more work and/or run the show in LOR? If I import my LOR S2 sequences, do I have to do a lot of tweaking to make them work in LSP?

The RGB functionality is a big plus for LSP. I think LOR is supposedling adding that as well, but at the current time that's LSP only. Those with floods/spots, Firefli/Cosmic Color Ribbon could really benefit from that.

Intersted in hearing what people say. Let's keep this clean so it's productive and not closed, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the latest versions of LSP do a pretty decent job at importing a sequence.

It will now maintain the color of the channel selection and the timings are maintained at about 90% or more, but I can't say 100% definitively

importing will not maintain tracks which isn't too bad, but what it does that makes things hard is realign things back into groups by controller which will move channel rows up and down from how they might have been set up in LOR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It will now maintain the color of the channel selection and the timings are maintained at about 90% or more, but I can't say 100% definitively

importing will not maintain tracks which isn't too bad

So you find yourself tweaking a lot of timings when importing an LOR sequence into LSP?

Does LSP have any concept of tracks or alternate timings?

Thanks,

-Tim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good information, and I echo the comments of Tim and would really like to foster some good discussion on the topic.

From a NEWBIE perspective, I assume that you can start from the ground up in LSP and build the entire sequence? By that I mean, there is no importing required from LOR and you can start directly from LSP building your show. I have kinda taken this concept for granted during my research, but just wanted to be clear and make sure it was out in the open.

IMO. The importing issues is probably more of a consideration for someone who has a library of shows built using LOR S2, or if you are a Newbie and download other individual sequences of the internet.

Good stuff, anxious to hear more

Erik

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOR Sequences are also more easily found to share. Even as a newbie, that import capability is important. Someone may already have a sequence you could start from in LOR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The RGB functionality is a big plus for LSP. I think LOR is supposedling adding that as well, but at the current time that's LSP only. Those with floods/spots, Firefli/Cosmic Color Ribbon could really benefit from that.

.

I know Tim is referring to just these two softwares mentioned here (LOR and LSP), but Aurora software also has RGB tools for setting up your controllers to sequencing if your looking for a seq. software with that capability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the question most LOR2 users would like to have answered, is "Why switch?"

Ability to convert and import files is all something I'd want to know about after I decide to switch, but aren't selling points in pondering whether or not to switch.

Other than the RGB that's been mentioned, what does LSP do that LOR2 doesn't? Why is it worth paying for a second software package, and worth the trouble of learning new software?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if LOR went to RGB Capability (and I've heard it's coming due to the CCR) that would pretty much solidify me. The big question is... When?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Other than the RGB that's been mentioned, what does LSP do that LOR2 doesn't? Why is it worth paying for a second software package, and worth the trouble of learning new software?
From what I can tell, the visualizer is better in the other programs - But not that good that I would switch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the question most LOR2 users would like to have answered, is "Why switch?"

If you just started and have a few dozen channels and only LOR equipment, stick with S2 - it's the path of least resistance.

Other than the RGB that's been mentioned, what does LSP do that LOR2 doesn't? Why is it worth paying for a second software package, and worth the trouble of learning new software?

There are some very compelling reasons why someone would consider LSP over S2:

  • Native DMX support without the need for a $250+ LOR iDMX
  • RGB Support - try doing a blend between two colors in S2... nearly impossible
  • Animator - If you intend to use the MegaMatrix or mutiple Bellagio polls to spell words or do animations, it's pretty easy within LSP
  • MUCH better real time visualizer that are much faster to setup
  • The ability to "scrub" the sequence right within the sequencing window, which for those without dual monitors is great
  • Support of Video
  • Wii integration (interactive displays) + Live Channels
  • Renard board support
  • DMX Pan/Tilt tools
  • THe ability to sequence via voice instead of switching between effects by clicking the tool bar
  • A "current" user interface.
  • The ability to start/stop your show from a Windows Mobile device
  • Support for touch panels
  • Super easy sequencing for leaping arches - just copy then past-drag

LSP from a feature standpoint blows S2 out of the water. Where LSP suffers compared to S2 is with minor UI issues/bugs. S2 also has better support as it is the "default" standard. LSP has a higher learning curve than S2 but in the end it's much more capable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Steve brings up a very valid point in that there really are two separate ways to view this comparison.

The first is for the veteran user of LOR S2, and probably that individual is very comfortable with using LOR, as well as having built up a large library of LOR Sequences. There is both a time and money factor that need to be applied to this situation, and ultimately answer the question of "why switch".

The second case is where the user is "new" to sequencing. Since the learning curve will essentially be the same regardless of the program they may choose, the question here is "Which one do I use" I feel that personally, I am in this second category. I do not intend on using all the additional features (RGB, WII, etc) that are currently available in LSP in 2010. However, for me I am trying to look at both programs from a fundamental sequencing level, and evaluate the capabilities that either program has when sequencing.

From the sounds of some of the discussion, LSP has a more refined visualizer and some additional features to help the efficiency of sequencing.

Erik

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Lightzilla

I think that we need to bare in mind that Lor is upgrading their software too, and I remember reading where Dan said something like "when or if we get to version 3".........so perhaps this year we will be in version 3 and who knows what awaits us.

I do not use LSP to run my display (not yet anyways), but I do own the software (Pro version), and I have used it to convert the AL sequences I had from 2008 which I was a AL controller user.

I also converted Aurora sequences to Lor 2 via LSP, but you need to download the demo version of the Aurora software in order to get the conversion started with LSP..........(it just has to be installed on your computer.

I also have the Vixen software download on my computer in order for LSP to convert it from Vixen, to LSP, to Lor 2 (actual I did convert 1 Vixen sequence to Lor 2) as a test.

I used an Aurora sequence ( that was converted to Lor 2 via LSP, and a couple of others) and it worked out O K for me..........but like any other shared sequence .........you make it fit your display.

Anyways, AL lighting folks use LSP to run their AL controllers and it seemed to work for them. Robinson3 made a video on LSP running both AL and Lor controllers together.

That's all I can add.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are some very compelling reasons why someone would consider LSP over S2:

  • Native DMX support without the need for a $250+ LOR iDMX
  • RGB Support - try doing a blend between two colors in S2... nearly impossible
  • Animator - If you intend to use the MegaMatrix or mutiple Bellagio polls to spell words or do animations, it's pretty easy within LSP
  • MUCH better real time visualizer that are much faster to setup
  • The ability to "scrub" the sequence right within the sequencing window, which for those without dual monitors is great
  • Support of Video
  • Wii integration (interactive displays) + Live Channels
  • Renard board support
  • DMX Pan/Tilt tools
  • THe ability to sequence via voice instead of switching between effects by clicking the tool bar
  • A "current" user interface.
  • The ability to start/stop your show from a Windows Mobile device
  • Support for touch panels
  • Super easy sequencing for leaping arches - just copy then past-drag

LSP from a feature standpoint blows S2 out of the water. Where LSP suffers compared to S2 is with minor UI issues/bugs. S2 also has better support as it is the "default" standard. LSP has a higher learning curve than S2 but in the end it's much more capable.

Thanks for this list. The only thing I should point out is that S2 does support video, fairly decently. Not sure if LSP does this better or not though...

A lot of the other features don't interest me that much (e.g. Wii/touchpanel control, and windows mobile control, although if they get iPhone control I might be interested). On the other hand, the ability to run DMX cheaply and also Renard et. al. would be a big plus.

The visualizer also isn't a big deal to me, since our display doesn't lend itself to be sequenced from a single picture (but since I've never seen the LSP visualizer, if it has features that would help me use it vs. the abstract 'blobs' I use in S2, I'd be interested).

But at the end of the day it comes down to which one lets me sequence better/faster. Taking RGB and DMX motion out of the picture (where S2 clearly has catching up to do), tracks and timings, as well as the many wizards, help me to sequence fairly easily in S2. I've never used LSP so I can't say if it's better or worse -- but I'd love to hear the opinions of those who have...

If I get a chance before next season I'd love to play with the LSP demo so I can get a better feel for this.

Thanks all for the info so far -- keep 'em coming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Horsepower required...

LSP does NOT like a lowly 2 GHZ P4 with 1 gig of RAM.

It is like molasses on a cold morning

S2 runs quickly and giggles like a schoolgirl on the same PC.

Just my personal experience..YMMV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Horsepower required...

LSP does NOT like a lowly 2 GHZ P4 with 1 gig of RAM.

It is like molasses on a cold morning

S2 runs quickly and giggles like a schoolgirl on the same PC.

Just my personal experience..YMMV

Ditto!

On another note, I had issues with DMX and importing, but I have not tested since Early December.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am so far in with LOR S2 that it's a scary proposition to switch.. but LSP definitely has three things that I could really use:

1. Ability to have multiple colors (channels) occupy the same space in the visualizer

2. RGB Capability

3. DMX Pan/Tilt Wizard..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I have both, but admittedly have not played much with LSP. The biggest advantage right now is in the DMX world. LSP has the nod her for sure. LOR has alluded to some enhancements, which I am sure will help with S2 in this area.

I find the translator a bit frustrating when it re-orders my channels into blocks that match the controllers. It just takes more work to rework things.

Next, LSP was a resource hog. In the last update, it looks like they took care of some of that.

Lastly, if you are staying in pure LOR IMO, staying with S2 will be fine. If you are looking to mix LOR and DIY (in my case Lynx), then LSP gets some serious consideration because it can drive LOR, Lynx/DMX all in one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...LSP from a feature standpoint blows S2 out of the water. Where LSP suffers compared to S2 is with minor UI issues/bugs. S2 also has better support as it is the "default" standard. LSP has a higher learning curve than S2 but in the end it's much more capable.

Would this be a fair assessment:

LSP has more features, and it working towards being more stable.

LOR S2 is relatively stable, and is working on adding more features.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. LSP does not have multiple tracks as in LOR. It uses "Virtual controllers" to to combine certain aspects of your display. It also does not have multiple timings to go with the "Virtual controllers"

2. It has many short cuts that IMO are much better than LOR. IE you can collapse a controller and program all channels at once. Also LSP have many preset chase settings. I could keep going all day, but let's just say there are many short cuts!

3. LSP is updating on a regular basis- not to say LOR is not, but LSP has many more!

4. LSP does have a large learning curve, but with all of it's functionality any program is going to.

5. LSP does perform much better on a large machine, but the latest update has helped with the performance quite a bit.

6. LSP will run almost any hardware not just LOR

7. Importing and exporting are not perfect so there will be adjustments that will need to be made. At least that has been my experience so far.

Just for the record I am not slamming LOR! I have used it for years and it is an awesome program with excellent customer support.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6. LSP will run almost any hardware not just LOR

LOR will run D-light hardware as well. According to the website they also run X10, DIO cards, and dasher devices.

EDIT: All of the Big name software programs, Aurora, LOR and LSP, will run all the major brand of controllers.

Edited by ChrisL1976

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. LSP does not have multiple tracks as in LOR. It uses "Virtual controllers" to to combine certain aspects of your display. It also does not have multiple timings to go with the "Virtual controllers"

This is a big deal to me. I like to have multiple tracks (now multiple timings), such as:

- One with the timings on each major beat in the song (usually generated via the Beat Wizard in S2)

- One tapped in to the lyrics

- One at .1 or .05 second increments, for fast chases and fine tuning

- Optionally, one with the VU wizard

As I sequence, I'm constantly flipping between the tracks/timings. It makes it very easy to have, for example, your mini trees switching between a fast fading chase, then alternate to the lyrics, then chase based on the beat of the music.

If all the timings are co-mingled, this takes us back to the way LOR I is and makes this much harder to do.

I feel strongly enough about tracks/timings that it would probably keep me from using LSP, even with its other nice features.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a big deal to me. I like to have multiple tracks (now multiple timings), such as:

- One with the timings on each major beat in the song (usually generated via the Beat Wizard in S2)

- One tapped in to the lyrics

- One at .1 or .05 second increments, for fast chases and fine tuning

- Optionally, one with the VU wizard

As I sequence, I'm constantly flipping between the tracks/timings. It makes it very easy to have, for example, your mini trees switching between a fast fading chase, then alternate to the lyrics, then chase based on the beat of the music.

If all the timings are co-mingled, this takes us back to the way LOR I is and makes this much harder to do.

I feel strongly enough about tracks/timings that it would probably keep me from using LSP, even with its other nice features.

I understand what you are saying, but LSP does let you change timings easily within a specific area and they are very open to making changes. One thing that I have noticed is that if you have a suggestion that will better the program they will do everything they can to get it out in the next update or so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...