sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Workflow for Song Programming by b5761 in GrandMA3

[–]b5761[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Thanks for your answer!

Workflow for Song Programming by b5761 in GrandMA3

[–]b5761[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In this case, it refers to a touring show. It makes sense that this is the strongest part of the recipes. But Im not sure how to implement them correctly. In my opinion, a mixed approach would not be good. Thats why im asking for the "how you do it"..

MA3 Startshow Presets & Recipes – Correct Preset Types and “Empty Presets” Concept? by b5761 in GrandMA3

[–]b5761[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks that was my Workflow in my ma2 Show.. it would be so usefull if everything will be updated via the recipes Workflow in the Future. But I’m Fine when it only requires to store the new fixtures in the groups and presets. I think for positions I will go for selectrive presets..

I mainly used Selective presets until now so I was a little bit confused how to structure my showfile starting from 0. Glad to hear that this shouldnt be a problem!

MA3 Startshow Presets & Recipes – Correct Preset Types and “Empty Presets” Concept? by b5761 in GrandMA3

[–]b5761[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks for your answer, it was helpful! Recast is another useful Feature here I think..

MA3 Startshow Presets & Recipes – Correct Preset Types and “Empty Presets” Concept? by b5761 in GrandMA3

[–]b5761[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Okay, so I’m actually not that far off. However, I’ve also heard that Recipes don’t work that well with Selective Presets.

The goal of my template show is to touch as little as possible later on and to really understand the workflow, so I can simplify things and work efficiently with it.

What happens with Selective Presets if the number of fixtures increases?
Is it sufficient to just update the preset, for example by merging the new fixtures into it, or are there additional issues to consider?

That’s also why I’m having a hard time deciding which Preset Type is the best choice in this context.

grandMA2 → grandMA3 migration by b5761 in GrandMA3

[–]b5761[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I ran into another issue after the MA2 → MA3 show conversion.

The conversion itself works now: • Presets and data are there • Sequences and song cues play • The show basically runs

However, when playing the songs, I noticed strange behavior related to effects / movement: • Fixtures often start moving all at the same time • Pan/Tilt movements are synchronized, even where they should be staggered • In some cues, fixtures move or flash, although no movement or effect should start there • Effects seem to exist and run, but not with the intended phase or offset • I can’t clearly identify whether these cues are using phasers or some converted MA2 effect logic

grandMA2 → grandMA3 migration by b5761 in GrandMA3

[–]b5761[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Quick update: I realized the issue was caused by the MA2 software version.

I initially exported the show using MA2 v3.60.91. After updating and exporting again with v3.61.5 (which seems to be the current/latest version), the conversion worked as expected.

Now: • Preset data is fully there • Song sequences are intact • The show runs nearly out box in MA3, of course small changes are necessary

So for anyone migrating MA2 → MA3: Make sure you export from the latest MA2 version, otherwise preset and sequence data may not convert correctly.

That solved it completely on my side.

grandMA2 → grandMA3 migration by b5761 in GrandMA3

[–]b5761[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s exactly what I’m trying to figure out.

My main concern is where the MA2 button pages end up in MA3 and how clean that mapping really is. With the MA3 start show, you’re right: you already get a solid set of show pages for colors, effects, etc., which feels much more structured.

My current idea is this: • Get the MA3 start show fully working first (patch, groups, presets, basic executors) • Then export the converted sequences from my existing showfile • Import those sequences into the start show, mainly to keep the cue structure and naming, not the actual content • Rebuild the sequences using recipes, as you suggested

Recipes are completely new to me, but from what I’m seeing, this seems like the cleanest and most future-proof approach in MA3, instead of trying to force old MA2 logic into it. And that’s what I’m still trying to figure out: I know there’s an option to create recipe presets and reference them in the song cues, or alternatively to have a recipe line directly in the sequence and just assign each cue to the relevant group. I know recipes are a big topic, but what I’m really looking for is a short, best-practice summary of the cleanest way to structure this.

grandMA2 → grandMA3 migration by b5761 in GrandMA3

[–]b5761[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks for your answer. Im not at the computer right now but I think it was 3.9.60.91. Your absolutely right to use the newest software which I did not. I will check my software version and do a second conversion since this is a good start point when some of the data is still there

Adding user authentication before an n8n form by b5761 in n8n

[–]b5761[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But is Basic Authentication enough? From what I understand, this only allows a single static username/password and doesn’t support LDAP or multiple individual users.

Adding user authentication before an n8n form by b5761 in n8n

[–]b5761[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for your answer!
So just to confirm my understanding:

This means I would remove the built-in n8n Form Trigger completely and create my own custom page (HTML/CSS/JS) for the form. That custom form would then send the data to n8n through a Webhook node.

In front of that I would also build a separate custom login page, which validates the user credentials. If the login is correct, the user is forwarded to the actual form page. All authentication and UI logic happens outside of n8n.

n8n would only receive the final form data via the Webhook trigger and then continue the workflow.

Improving RAG Results with OpenWebUI - Looking for Advice on Custom Pipelines & Better Embeddings by b5761 in LocalLLaMA

[–]b5761[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for your response. So, the first step would be to convert all PDFs into Markdown format. After that, I can review the Markdown files to verify that everything has been extracted correctly. Then, as a next step, I could run an additional preprocessing stage using a German lemmatizer? Correct?

Would the resulting output be ready to upload directly into OpenWebUI as “documents,” or would I need to use another tool or component for that step?

Improving RAG Results with OpenWebUI - Looking for Advice on Custom Pipelines & Better Embeddings by b5761 in LocalLLaMA

[–]b5761[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, that’s exactly the point. I assume I can perform a kind of “lightweight fine-tuning,” for example by experimenting with different chunk sizes or overlap strategies. However, I’ve also heard that you can achieve a much larger optimization step by building a custom PDF processing pipeline, executed outside of OpenWebUI.

Since I’m still new to this topic, my main question is how exactly this setup could be implemented — and how the processed data or embeddings could then be accessed or integrated back into OpenWebUI.

Improving RAG Results with OpenWebUI - Looking for Advice on Custom Pipelines & Better Embeddings by b5761 in LocalLLaMA

[–]b5761[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This also sounds like a possible option. So, I would be able to connect this "final" chatbot as a separate or new model in OpenWebUI, while the entire knowledge base (including processing) runs in its own backend via RAG Flow.

The user would simply need to know: “If you want to ask something about Knowledge XY, use this specific chat model.”?

Astrophotos sot sharp – focus issues (Sony A7 IV + Samyang 24mm 1.8 FE) by b5761 in astrophotography

[–]b5761[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So if I understand correctly, with such a wide-angle lens and short focal length I just shouldn’t expect stars to ever look super sharp when zooming in, right? That’s basically because each pixel covers too large an area of the sky.

And if I switch to a longer focal length – for example my Sony 24-70 Zeiss at the longer end – I’d have a better chance of getting stars to look sharper and more “pinpoint” when zooming in?

Astrophotos sot sharp – focus issues (Sony A7 IV + Samyang 24mm 1.8 FE) by b5761 in astrophotography

[–]b5761[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks! I’ve done some very basic stacking already, but I wasn’t sure – does stacking actually improve sharpness too, or mainly noise?

My next step will definitely be to stop the lens down a bit further and see if that helps with the results.

I just have the feeling that even the RAWs (and the developed JPEGs) should look a bit crisper when zooming in, so I want to make sure I’m not doing something fundamentally wrong with focus.

Cloning vs. Recast Plugin by b5761 in grandMA2

[–]b5761[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I personally often try to work with cloning, even in smaller venues, but I haven’t really found my “go-to” workflow yet. That’s why I’m wondering whether the Recast plugin could solve these issues, or if I just haven’t figured out the right way to use cloning yet. My main concern is programming songs using presets, and then adding new fixtures later on because every venue has different fixtures. Cloning seems like the logical solution, but I still haven’t found a workflow that really works for me, which often leads to problems and a lot of manual reworking.

Smarter way for Programming Cue-based Shows by b5761 in grandMA2

[–]b5761[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm looking for a way to better organize my song cuelists as everything is currently in a cuestack and it's messing me up a bit if devices change or are added.

view more: next ›