Wave and step per X in dylos

I think we can all agree that dylos is pretty amazing and a one of a kind system.
I think we can also agree that the original FX engine from m-pc is kinda bad. Imo every serious software needs a presets bases way to create FX. And since dylos can already do that it’s on a great path to become the new FX engine. Combining pixelmapping with Orestes based FX ia kind of genius.

But one thing that’s missing is a way to offset FX. Especially with generators that option is missing and the only reason I don’t create every FX with dylos.

The other thing that would be nice would be a overhualt of the way dylos is controlled with the encoders. I’d like to use the encoders on my wing but it’s borderline impossible with he way the parameters are currently named.

Such symmetry has to come from the generators through mirroring etc. Some of this is already possible. wave and step dividers don’t really apply to Dylos as its depending on the positions on the fixtures in the 2D layout, not on the fixture ID order. any changes must come from the content, not the fixture selection.

Can you be more specific on the Dylos / Encoder controls. What isn’t working from your Wing as you expect?

Such symmetry has to come from the generators through mirroring etc. Some of this is already possible. wave and step dividers don’t really apply to Dylos as its depending on the positions on the fixtures in the 2D layout, not on the fixture ID order. any changes must come from the content, not the fixture selection.

Understandable but changing the 2D Plan for “every” fx is tedious. having some more ways to transform the dylos content would be nice. Using dylos as an fx engine feels a lot more natural than the original engine. Expanding on this it would be nice to get more generators/the ability to create ower on.

Can you be more specific on the Dylos / Encoder controls. What isn’t working from your Wing as you expect?

The biggest problem I’m having that its kind of complicated with a lot of different things to adjust. From a pixelmapping perspective this is very nice, but form an fx engine I feel like there is too much. Depending on what you selected (the zone, the source, fx 1 etc) you get different options. It takes a long time (especially for newer users) to find what you are looking for. At the same time, the Paramet Group names are not helping either. For example, when selecting a deformation the deformation angle is on the second page of gobo, and not under pan/tilt. This doesnt seem natural to me.

And especially with the encoders some options are kind of hidden, it is easier to access this: image then trying to find them in the channel visualization. (I still dont know how to change the fill ratio with encoders).

I’m not proposing to jus remove the options, they are important for actual pixelmapping, I would prpose two things: change some of the option names and where to find them so it makes more sense.
and add a simplfied mode for the times the user is just interested in using dylos as an fx enigne

…we are all new with dylos, it is fresh…