@plastictaxi said:
...so, is "2 instance izzy" is a hack? or just a riskier way of running?
The fact that you are experiencing program crashes probably answers this. I guess we learn our own methods and developments when putting shows together. It is really wonderful that Isadora allows the flexibility for each user to craft a unique system.
Technical theatre operators in my city are still apprehensive about my methods when I work in their theatres. They are unfamiliar and skeptical about a software that controls all the technical aspects of the theatre in one box. One of those concerns is really valid, and that is the question of is the system prone to crash? And how long will it take to reinstate the system when if it does?
If you are using Isadora and experience a program crash, even once, during a public showing in a large theatre it is going to be hard to recover from that in terms of the level of trust and anticipation of risk when approaching the next production.
There are many ways to mitigate the risk, such as assigning a solid black desktop color and setting projectors to a black screen so that you are not suddenly projecting unintended logos and desktop images in front of audiences if Isadora crashes.
I tend to develop total theatre projects where all of the elements interact and it all happens in primary and secondary active scenes within Isadora. I am more inclined to run multiple instances of Isadora on separate computers and network them together. Often I will have a patch on a machine that is focused on audio and running visuals and another machine that is running lighting through a dmx interface and running more visuals. I have used KVM switches to monitor and access each machine but generally building one control interface that can be extended to a wireless controller such as TouchOSC.
But I would say that using Isadora enables great diversity in application that extends far outside the standard formats of technical theatre and well beyond the architecture of the theatre itself.
We may have to accept that with great flexibility we are prone to programming in less stable territory. And it might be that the openness and diversity of valid approaches possible when developing with Isadora is also a reason that it is underestimated and perhaps undervalued by the sector?
I am speculating.
Best wishes
Bonemap