Qm2000 vs fb3

Discussion in 'QM2000 series of products' started by gabrielefx, Aug 14, 2013.

  1. gabrielefx

    gabrielefx Member

    Hi all,

    I would like to know if there are visible differences in output between the QM2000 and the FB3

    regards
     
  2. gabrielefx

    gabrielefx Member

    14 years old hardware?

    Hi,
    I read that the qm2000 hardware design is 14 years old
    Why?...
    I would like to purchase a .net ilda interface but investing on old ( but functional ) hardware I don't think it's a good idea.

    Any update?

    regards
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 26, 2013
  3. Astatic

    Astatic Member

    Yes there is.
    We have several qm2000.net and i see the FB3 hardware is defenitly faster in frames p.s.
    We have some animations which drop to a fps count arround 7 fps which makes the animation flicker.
    So if you have complex frames i would advice to buy a PB3.
    FB3's are USB as for the moment, if your intent to do big shows you would need ethernet instead of USB.
    There are some solutions for that but these are exspensive (USB/Ethernet converter).
     
  4. gabrielefx

    gabrielefx Member

    thank you
    I don't understand why Pangolin sells a so prehistoric hardware: the qm2000
    In 2013 the ILDA association should define a sort of art-net standard for ilda.
    I heard 2 years ago of an new FB3.net and today I don't see any new interface.
    I see that Laserword has a wi-fi FB3 dongle.
     
  5. Pangolin

    Pangolin Staff Member

    Hi folks,

    Forgive me for being just a bit amused by this discussion. It was me, Bill Benner, who designed the QM2000 board. I was on the design team of the FB3 and every other piece of hardware we make.

    First let me state the obvious. Yes, the QM2000 is most definitely different from the FB3. The QM2000 is nominally a PCI plug-in-card, which may also be used on a network. The FB3 is USB-based hardware.

    When discussing any piece of hardware or software you will ever use, to me, the most important thing is the answer to the question -- does it work or not? Another important and related question is -- how well does it work?

    Do either of you believe that Windows VISTA is better than Windows XP? Windows VISTA is newer for sure. But I think just about everyone in the world would agree that it is one of the most disasterous operating systems ever released... If either of you believe that Windows 7 or Windows 8 are better than Windows XP, just take a look at how well Microsoft stock is doing these days. =) My point is, newer isn't always better!

    If you look at things with the answer -- does it work, and how well does it work, then the QM2000 is clearly a winner. Yes, it has served the industry for around 13 years, and continues to serve the industry well to this date (which is a testament to the great hardware design). But over the course of that time, it has helped more laserists win ILDA awards than all other platforms combined over that time period. There are also a lot of people who use the LD2000-series of software, which means that when it comes time to trade frames, shows, or do work for other people, the likelihood is that you'd have an easy time of it, because the LD2000-series is so popular.

    The LD2000 series and QM2000 hardware are also supported by the widest variety of software packages out there -- not only from Pangolin, but others too. Genereally there is more support for the QM2000 than any other hardware that we know of.

    One thing that makes the QM2000 so great is that it can be used with our newer BEYOND software as well. Our FB3 and soon-to-be-released FB4 are only usable on our newer software such as QuickShow and BEYOND.

    Regarding networking, this is another area that tends to amuse me. Pangolin was the very first company in the industry to do networking. We did it in 1997, for the 850th anniversary of Moscow, where our networking system was used to connect 15 separate computers over around 2kM of network cable at a stadium in Moscow. It was the largest show done to date, and still one of the largest in history.

    We took the networking technology developed for that show and continued to refine it. The QM2000 can be used several ways in a network. It can be placed in a PC and "shared" using our LD2000_Network.exe program. Alternatively it can be placed in a small QM2000.NET box, which makes a very convenient package. Alternatively, some of our customers build a QM2000 directly into a laser projector, along with a tiny PC to operate it.

    Regarding the FB3, it is great hardware. But as we mentioned above, it is only usable with a subset of our software.

    Regarding a comment that the frame rate dropped, this is a non-qualified comment. For sure if both hardware are tasked to do exactly the same thing, then the frame rate will be the same. Note that the FPS counter is merely a reference, not gospel!

    Yes it is true that lw is making a new series of projectors with a built-in network card. Our Phoenix software will be the first (and actually only) software to work with that network card. But our other software won't be able to be used with this hardware, because that lw network card is based on a simple, fixed sample rate philosophy.

    Best regards,

    William Benner
     

Share This Page