New Netlinx Studio ?
Cameron D
Posts: 31
When are we going to see a new version of Netlinx Studio.
The last version 2.6 was November 2007 with not many new updates that were asked for in the forum- Netlinx Studio - Suggestions for future revisions of Studio.
Can AMX let us know if any new versions are in the pipeline.
The last version 2.6 was November 2007 with not many new updates that were asked for in the forum- Netlinx Studio - Suggestions for future revisions of Studio.
Can AMX let us know if any new versions are in the pipeline.
0
Comments
Who wants to make a bet as to which program will have another build released first?
Visual Architect
April 2006 - VA 1.0
June 2006 - VA 1.1
Sept 2006 - VA 1.2
July 2007 - VA 1.3
3 minor* builds in 14 months
NetLinx Studio
July 2004 - NS 2.2
March 2005 - NS 2.3
January 2006 - NS 2.4
August 2006 - NS 2.5
October 2007 - NS 2.6
4 minor* builds in 39 months
*common software versioning structures
LMAO! Now you're just being funny.
[rant]
In all seriousness, If AMXs M.O. is moving away from programmers/designers and toward non-programmers/sales-people developing their systems, I think they are making a big mistake. I've been tasked at our company with investigating the new Savant control system. I attended their product roll-out last spring in Florida. I've also been studying them quite a bit since.
The company was basically started by an ex-integrator who hates AMX. His goal is to create an integrated controller that needs no programmer or programming. It's a Wizard-based (sorta), schematic driven programming environment that 'does the programming for you.'
Their implimentation of that concept is actaully pretty unique. At the time of the event, their product was definitely not ready for prime time. And, I still have my doubts about it in that I just don't think it's that well thought out. They see themselves as AMX/Craptron killers. I don't think they have a good grasp of what kinds of systems people are doing with AMX/Craptron.
During one of the demo session I was trying to recreate just a small portion of one of the systems I was currently working on. The program was hopelessly clunky and was clearly out of its league. The Savant programmer sitting next to me was aghast that I was actually doing systems that large. I told him that I was only doing about 1/5 of the total system. I don't think he beleived me.
If you ever get to experience their development environment, you'd see what I mean. For small, one-room systems with whole house distributed audio, it'll get the gig done. However, larger scale home automation (don't even consider commercial or industrial level stuff) they are just not there. And in my opinion, they cannot get there with their hardware architecture and software development environment.
In addition to Savant not being realistic about where they fit into the whole A/V/Autoamtion/etc.. market, they also don't seem to understand that, at the level they are operating, there is plenty of well established competition. Elan, Niles, etc... Standing there brandishing the 'AMX/Craptron killer sword' is not going to change the reality of what they are at the bidness end of things. As things stand right now, Savant is not going to be able to provide the kind of system AMX is capable of doing, despite their claims to the contrary. I think I'm going to their next thing in Massachusetts and we'll see what we shall see as far as improvements to their strategy.
And that brings me to my point...
In my experience what separates AMX for the rest of the pack is the fact that it is way more flexible and customizable and more powerful an environment than the other players. It's admittedly more of a niche' market. But how many times have we seen companies that cater to the higher end look one step below them and see all the bottom-feeders making a killing then try to move into that market.
The end result is that they lose both markets. They typically are not tooled for nor have the mind-set of those lower-level companies and consequently fail. However, in the mean time, they have poured so many resources into getting into that lower level market that they have neglected their base market and have fallen out of favor with them as well. I think those of us on this forum have been living this for some time.
In my way of thinking, if you're trying for that lower-level market, develop a new product line. Don't try to kluge your existing product into it. (VA developement environment and so forth) AMX is not really tooled for that market. It's hauling hay in a BMW. In addition, it devalues the high-end product side of things.
I've seen several VA developed systems and to be frank, Elan and Niles type stuff does it better. (and for less money) Conversely, those same Elan and Niles type systems look rinky-dink when compared to a full-bore, welll designed and programmed AMX system. That's what our clients say when they see both things side by side.
[/rant]
I came from a Cres backgorund when everything was still coding and simpl windows wasn't used much. I noticed that the quality and robustness of systems started to drop when 'programmers' were given a drag and drop environment.
You can only really build a solid system when you are down in the nitty gritty of communication between interface-controller-source. Drag n drop programming takes away the programmers ability to fiddle and intervene with communication between devices, and programmers who haven't been down in there with the code have, in my opinion, less ability to understand / troubleshoot the system.
I'm not sure what is considered wrong with Studio, I like it. It's a solid development platform for a hands on kinda approach.
Sometimes I have to do some bit and pieces on Cres systems and when your in the Simpl Winny and Simpl+ environment you will be screaming to get back to AMX and Studio
(* the above statement probably adds nothing to the thread, but I have a few minutes to spare with a coffee*)
Well, I'm getting the feeling that most programmers think there needs to be more with NS. Don't get me wrong, it works. But there's plenty AMX could do to make this an AWESOME program. There's a whole thread devoted to improvements for NS.
Now that dive into Cres with Simpl+, etc. is a dive I may be willing to take if AMX doesn't get in shape. My problems don't end with NetLinx Studio, it's a whole array of issues - and mostly are from a programmer's standpoint. I often don't get into the field and deal with the hardware - but if I did, I'm sure I could go off even more.
I think to answer the OP's question: you'll be hard pressed to see AMX release any type of time line for any software (except VA.)
For those that have never developed Cre$tron code, I believe SMCSI is confusing SIMPL Windows (their NetLinx Studio) with one of their "wizard" type programs that are more like VisualArchitect. Programming in SIMPL Windows gives you every single bit of ability to "fiddle and intervene". You've can get as crazy as you want and do everything with connected equipment that you can with AMX. While code in SIMPL Windows is visually based, it is NOT by any means "drag and drop" - a statement that conjures up images of "code builder" type wizards. I "strongly dislike" both companies wizards, for the record...
To each their own, seriously. I'm in the opposite camp, because I can flow through creation of Cre$tron code much more smoothly these days. (And don't even get me started on debugging - Cre$tron's debugging tools (even with their share of bugs) beat the crap out of AMX's flaky and cumbersome stuff) I think the "screaming to get back to..." doesn't indicate anything better or worse about either development platform, but really about what you're more used to, more familiar with, more productive with. I say that because I find myself "screaming to get back to Cre$tron" when I'm handed AMX projects these days.
Don't get me wrong - I programmed AMX gear before I even knew Cre$tron existed. I used to be a much bigger fan of AMX over Cre$tron, but that's shifted over the past few years. (For several reasons, some of which aren't even related to the programming language) I just don't like it when people who may not have ever seen "the other brand" get biased takes on why the other brand sucks. You can accomplish the exact same things with either platform, so it's simply a matter of which goes better for you in the development department. Both camps have good points, both have bad points - but anyone that hasn't worked with both shouldn't become prejudiced against the other without giving it a fair, hands-on try.
- Chip
You can NOT program a large home with COOL options by pulling icons around. It's the difference between controlling a home an automating a home.
One thing I didn't mention before but adds to your comment...
One thing that Savant is doing is kinda sneaky and gives the end-user a lot of bang-for-the-buck that I think AMX should pay close attention to is their touch panel.
The panels look great and do a lot more visually.
They are basically giving the customer a closed-black-box web tablet connected to a MAC OSX server running clients. A Mac Server can provide up to 8 remote clients at a time. So, when you set up a Savant system, the user interface is a kluged MAC client on an OSX server. The MAC server then comms with the Savant hardware to do the deeds.
The upshot of all this is that the user sees a very nice graphic interface with the full force of the MAC graphics engine behind it (with all its high-falooten 3D rendering on the fly and whatnot.) They had TP backgrounds with full 3D motion animation going and very pretty graphics. They also had pretty seamless integration of all the Mac widgets as well. It was basically a Macintosh without the menu bar across the top and icons on the destop.
Their model was interesting in that they were kinda hiding the cost of the touch panels with a little smoke and mirrors. Most dealers there were pounding on them for the MSRP of the TPs. It was pretty low. However, after you figure in the fact that you also have to buy one of thier custom configured Mac OSX servers, it quickly got up to AMX/Craptron price levels. Since you need the server no matter how many TPs you want, it behooved the client to get as many as possible to offset the cost of the server. That in groups of 8 TPs.
What I did see that was very disconcerting, however, from all the dealers on the floor who were obviously 'technologically challenged' was general jaw dropping and oohing and ahhing at the level of sophistication of the GUI. They didn't care to know how it worked, they just kept saying, "Wow, my Craptron/AMX panels can't do that!!!" I think end-users would say the same thing based upon looks alone.
What I don't like is sales people selling the wrong hardware for the job. I'll never forget when I had to program a RGB Spectrum MediaWall 2000 to act like two Quad Views. 1000 plus lines of Simpl+ later I had it working as close as you can get without a switcher and hardwired inputs to video overlays in the box. lol I told the sales person next time he wants two quad views in the system to spec two quad views.