Hi guys. I've just finished writing a C++ DirectX 9.0c program to help you find first
reflection points in your theatre rooms.

http://www.kulkarnicorp.com/firstsmall.jpg

Instructions
---------------

First of all, you can fly around the scene using W,A,S,D,Q, and Z on the keyboard, and left click and drag over the scene to pan your view around. It is very much like a camera from a first person shooter game.

To find your reflection points, first adjust the dimensions of your room, then adjust the size and location of the front/center channels. Each of these speakers is represented by a colored rectangle (acoustic energy is simulated coming off the front face of the speaker only -- but I think this is valid for first reflections). Next, adjust the front/rear listener position and size (the green boxes). Essentially you want these to completely cover all possible locations for people's ears in your theatre. The smaller these boxes the tighter your reflection zones will be. Adjust the screen if you want -- it is really just here to assist you with scale when setting up the room -- it is considered transparent as far as sound is concerned. Finally, click the "find reflections" button and watch it go. Save your room setup if you like and you can reload it later on.

It plays nice with others, so if you reduce it to the taskbar, CPU utilization will drop to 0.

edit: new version 1.02 posted, choose .rar or .zip:
http://www.kulkarnicorp.com/frv1.02.rar
http://www.kulkarnicorp.com/frv1.02.zip

It seems MS has some issues with some of their directX downloads and they are missing some DLL's. If you get an error about missing dlls, you can resolve that issue here (thanks to vipercompany for finding this):
http://www.toymaker.info/Games/html/d3dx_dlls.html

changes from v1.01 to v1.02:
Fixed bug causing "illegal operation" crash when starting up in less than 24-bit color depth (thx to ecrabb for finding it!).
Fixed bug where raytracer was not reset after room loaded from disk.
More raytracing speed improvements. v1.0 was 31 seconds, v1.02 is 11 seconds to trace 1,000,000 rays for default setup on my machine.
Listening positions can now be moved up to 20' forward off back wall
Rewrite of GUI rendering code makes it 10% faster.
Tweaked mouse click detection areas around buttons/sliders.

changes from v1.0 to v1.01:
A few more startup checks to help older video cards.
Major improvement in raytracing speed. On my machine, the default room took 31 seconds in v1.0. It takes 14 seconds in v1.01.


Requirements:

Windows XP SP2
DirectX 9.0c


I don't have Vista, but as far as I know it won't work, because MS has no plans
for backwards compatibility between DirectX 10 and DirectX 9.0c. Older versions
of DirectX will not work either.

I have done my utmost to make sure this program functions correctly, including testing on several machines, virus-scanning the archive before posting it, etc. I don't expect any problems, but please keep in mind that you use the tool at your own discretion.

Feel free to email me with any bugs, suggestions, or requests. My email
is in the title bar of the application (see the screenshot). :)

At the suggestion of a forum member, i've added a paypal email for donations.
If you feel the tool has helped you out and you'd like to support further development, you can paypal any amount to smith@kulkarnicorp.com. Thanks

As a beta tester for this app I can HIGHLY recommend it! I'm building my panels based on it and I think the results will be great.

Thanks to Chris for putting this together and his patience in dealing with my dumb questions! And follow-up thanks to Bryan Pape (bpape on here) for all of his assistance in getting the correct dampening material for my theater and answering my questions.

-drin

Thanks for all your hard work and skills.
This is timely because I just finished my theater and am having sound issues. Of course the "other issues" will be addressed by a psychiatric professional. :)

Just installed it, looks great. Thanks for your work!!!

Thanks drin, and dndwilson + Josh you're welcome. I hope it helps somebody avoid the "slide a mirror down the wall" ordeal. Also it's kinda hard to slide a mirror down your ceiling, and this app will do that for you too. :)

Wow, very cool. So, timely, too. I'll be painting in about two weeks and I really wasn't relishing the thought of "sliding a mirror down the wall" on my brand new paint job.

One note... the app won't work in Parallels on the Mac (it does now - see EDIT below). I get the error "16-bit depth buffer is not supported on this hardware". Parallels renders in software (no hardware acceleration) so I assume it's a Parallels video issue - I just thought I'd mention it for others.

Regardless, thanks so much for a cool tool!

SC

EDIT - Now six months later (November 2007), FRV 1.02 works perfectly in Parallels Desktop 3.0 Build 4560.0.

Installed DirectX 9.0c

Starting up program gives error "Direct3D initialization failed. See console.txt for more information."

Here is the contents of console.txt

--------------------------------------

Direct3D Information

--------------------------------------

Initializing Direct3D
Creating Direct3D Object
Creating Direct3D Device
Querying Direct3D Device Capabilities
D3DFVFCAPS_PSIZE support detected
Creating Vertex Buffers
Creating Index Buffers
Filling Index Buffers
Loading Texture textures.png
Texture Load Failed D3D error code: -2005529767
Failed loading texture textures.png

Any Suggestions?

Thanks,
Rusty

AMAZING program!

I spent hours in Autocad drawing lines to get the reflection points. This program could have saved me tons of time to get a basic layout.

ecrabb: To be honest I never considered emulation on a Mac. I'll do some reading about Parallels and see if I can get that working for you.

Rusty: Make sure you unpack all the files from the archive. One of them is called textures.png and it needs to be in the same directory as the .exe or else the app will give the error you stated. textures.png is just an image that contains all the gui stuff and the picture used for the walls of the theatre.

crackyflipside: thx again. :) Glad people are liking it. It makes all those hours worth it.

ecrabb: To be honest I never considered emulation on a Mac. I'll do some reading about Parallels and see if I can get that working for you.
Wow, thanks. It may not be worth much of your time considering how few people would use it that way... but, I'm guessing there will be more and more. Thanks, though - and I'll help however I can!

SC

Already put a link in my sig :cool:

Very nice work, this will be great when I get to this point! This should be a sticky!!!

Thx again everyone. :)

ecrabb,

After doing some searching, it looks like Parallels doesn't support DirectX yet, but they are planning it for their next release. It should work automatically once they include full DirectX emulation.

ecrabb:

Rusty: Make sure you unpack all the files from the archive. One of them is called textures.png and it needs to be in the same directory as the .exe or else the app will give the error you stated. textures.png is just an image that contains all the gui stuff and the picture used for the walls of the theatre.



Yep, textures.png was there so I deleted and extracted again. Works great now.

Thanks!

After doing some searching, it looks like Parallels doesn't support DirectX yet, but they are planning it for their next release. It should work automatically once they include full DirectX emulation.
That makes sense. I knew Cinebench (Maxon Cinema 4D benchmarking app) worked in Parallels, but obviously that's because Cinebench (and Cinema) are OpenGL-based as opposed to DirectX. Anyway, thanks for checking it out - I'm not up on all the Windows API's - DirectThis, DirectThat - I can't keep up with two OS's. Good thing I have a plain old Windows box around... thanks!

SC

My front speakers are above my screen, but on an angled wall that directs the speakers towards the listening area (it would be the same if they were on a flat wall, but angled down towards the seating). Will this program take that into account, or will all the reflection points be too high?

Hi Stew. The tool will still work in your case. The reflection points detected won't be too high. It is the relative position of the speaker and the listener that determines the location of the reflected points.

The best way I can describe this is imagine if you were doing the "slider a mirror down the wall" test. You'd still see the speaker when the mirror reached a specific point on the wall, whether the speaker was rotated or not, right? You wouldn't need to raise the mirror higher on the wall just because the speaker was rotated. :)

Hi Stew. The tool will still work in your case. The reflection points detected won't be too high. It is the relative position of the speaker and the listener that determines the location of the reflected points.

The best way I can describe this is imagine if you were doing the "slider a mirror down the wall" test. You'd still see the speaker when the mirror reached a specific point on the wall, whether the speaker was rotated or not, right? You wouldn't need to raise the mirror higher on the wall just because the speaker was rotated. :)

That's true, but I always assumed that the mirror technique would be inaccurate for the same reason.

Nope. If you're talking about the reflection points being higher because the speaker is above the screen, you are correct, but both the mirror test and this tool take that into account. However the rotation won't give you problems.

I downloaded the file, extracted it to a folder on my desktop then tried to run first.exe and I get the error "unable to locate component: This application has failed to start because d3dx9_32.dll was not found. Re-installing the application may fix the problem."

Any Ideas? As I've made panels, I just need to know for sure where to hang them up :p

I even re-installed directx9.0c

Never mind, got it working. If anyone else is having similar errors, I went to this site and clicked on the d3dx9_32.dll and it installed it for me, now the program works. Great Job by the way.

http://www.toymaker.info/Games/html/d3dx_dlls.html

Wow this program is great! I just wish there was some way to make everything move to the left a bit. (since my whole system is not in the exact center of the room, it is about 3 feet to the left

Hi vipercompany. So you would need all 3 speakers moved to one side of the room? I'll add that to my "features for the next version" list.

Hi vipercompany. So you would need all 3 speakers moved to one side of the room? I'll add that to my "features for the next version" list.

Correct, even the screen and the seating. Also another thing, is my front row ear position is about 13 feet from the back wall, the max in the program is 10 feet.Thank you again for all of your hard work!

Thanks !!

Why does my view of the packed file ONLY have the textures.png?

i smell a sticky for this ;)

go the file to unpack but now getting the dll error....ugh

tried the website mentioned with no luck...help

now this....

--------------------------------------

Direct3D Information

--------------------------------------

Initializing Direct3D

Creating Direct3D Object

Creating Direct3D Device

Failed creating D3D9 Device with error code: 0x8876086c

vipercompany,

I'll add a few more features in v1.1 that allow you to place the speakers/listeners how you need to.

Texas Aggie,

Do you know what video card you have? If you can give me some of the details i'll see what I can find out using that and the error code you posted. thanks

edit: Also please run dxdiag (start->run then type dxdiag and hit enter), go to the display tab, hit "test direct3D" and post your results.

edit2: TexasAggie I just posted a new version 1.01 with some more startup checks specifically for older video cards. Please give it a try and see if it works for you.

jeffreylebowski, you have provided us an excellent tool! My heartfelt thanks for taking the time and sharing this with the rest of us!

I found it to work perfectly first time around, with no bugs. Being able to 'fly through' is also an excellent feature.

http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o306/YW84U/ReflectionPoints.jpg



Time to start planning my panels......

Wow!!!!

Got it working.....veeeeery slick


Thanks

Well, I think you just won Forum Member of the Month. Nice work!

Nope. If you're talking about the reflection points being higher because the speaker is above the screen, you are correct, but both the mirror test and this tool take that into account. However the rotation won't give you problems.


Maybe I'm obtuse, but I still don't see how that would be correct. What if the speakers were pointing straight down? The reflection point certainly wouldn't be on the wall somewhere between the speaker and the seat. Obviously that's an exaggeration, but if the speakers are angled down at all, the path that the sound would travel would be different than if the speakers were pointed straight ahead. The different sound path would mean a different reflection point, wouldn't it?

Maybe I'm obtuse, but I still don't see how that would be correct. What if the speakers were pointing straight down? The reflection point certainly wouldn't be on the wall somewhere between the speaker and the seat. Obviously that's an exaggeration, but if the speakers are angled down at all, the path that the sound would travel would be different than if the speakers were pointed straight ahead. The different sound path would mean a different reflection point, wouldn't it?

Hi Stew4msu.

I think maybe the key point is that the sound is not fired in a straight line off the front of the speaker. It is simulated heading out in thousands of different directions, randomly chosen in a very wide cone coming off the face of the speaker (currently 80 degrees in the program). In this diagram, sound is simulated coming out in every direction inside the arc bounded in white. If you were to rotate the speaker, as long as the yellow raytracing line coming off the speaker stays inside the white perimeter line on the arc (next to the 'a' in theta), the reflection point will still be detected. In this diagram I whipped up, the angle theta > 50 degrees, so you could rotate the speaker in or down that amount and still detect the proper reflection points.

http://www.kulkarnicorp.com/refl.jpg

The equivalent in the mirror test would be to say as long as you can still see a sliver of the front face of the speaker in the mirror, you would consider that a possible reflection point. If you rotate the speaker past that, you will miss reflection points.

OK, that makes sense, thank you.

Jeff, this program is amazing!!!

I nominate you for the Nobel Peace Prize. :D




Mods, sticky this thread!

anyone else notice a constant humming background noise while running this program? If I change to a different program or minimize the program, the noise will go away. maybe it is just my cheap built-in sound card?

Great tool! Thanks for the time and effort. Works great.

I have one suggestion that would be useful for my room (and maybe others?) - the ability to model a cathedral ceiling.

Cheers,

Curt

Great program, thanks :D
I'm playing around with modeling my room, and I have a question that may or may not go here.

I don't have the space to put my speakers behind my screen, and there is a soffit full of ductwork above the screen, so my center channel has to be below (about 18" off the ground). Am I better off putting my L/R at the same height of the center of the screen, or the height of the C, or somewhere in between (which is what i'm leaning towards)
I only have one row of seating so theres no worries about the people in the back row.

I don't have Vista, but as far as I know it won't work

Confirmed. Using Vista Home Premium with DX10 and it does not work.

Used another PC with XP Pro and worked like a charm. Great program!

New version 1.02 is now posted guys. Changes are in post #1.

I don't plan on posting a new version every day, but when important bugs are found - especially ones that cause "illegal operations", i'll push out an updated version ASAP. Thanks to ecrabb for finding an "illegal operation" crash that is now fixed in v1.02. There is also some added functionality described in post #1.

jspeillman,

Thanks for the info on Vista. I'll post a DX10 version shortly after I get Vista since the port will be easy.

mbennum,

Thanks! As to your question, i'm honestly not sure. Some forum searches may turn up results.

Curt3g,

Thanks! I'll add cathedral ceiling to the list of feature requests.


ps. Does anyone know how I can modify the thread title? I'd like to update the current version info in there too if possible.

I know its me, but what do you need to get this program running?? I downloaded the file from the first page and it want another program to run it??

What do I need to run it. I did install DirectX 9.0c

I know its me, but what do you need to get this program running?? I downloaded the file from the first page and it want another program to run it??

What do I need to run it. I did install DirectX 9.0c

Hi ccapozzoli. What error do you get when you try to run it?

Thanks for the update. Also an e-mail address for paypal donations would be appreciated. Thanks
-Andrew

Hi vipercompany. Thanks! Paypal email is smith@kulkarnicorp.com. :)

anyone else notice a constant humming background noise while running this program? If I change to a different program or minimize the program, the noise will go away. maybe it is just my cheap built-in sound card?

Are you sitting at a first reflection point when using the software?

Thanks to vipercompany for his donation!

If there are any other requests for certain features in the room geometry (such as the ability to use cathedral ceilings), please let me know in the next 24 hours, as I will be reworking this part of the code over the next few days.

How about a zip archive for download, in addition to an rar?

- Terry

How about a zip archive for download, in addition to an rar?

- Terry

Hi Terry. Zip archive has been added as a download option in the first post.

What size room does this program support? Mine is 24'x24' with cathedral style ceiling 15' at highest point

Another thought on cathedral ceilings. I'm not sure if folks have builds with them running either parallel or perpendicular to the screen wall.

Regards,

Curt

Hi Gino. The program in the current form supports rooms larger than 24'x24'. Cathedral ceilings will be added in the next release.

Thx Curt3g, i'll make sure you can choose the axis for the cathedral ceiling.

jeffreylebowski,

Brilliant work!!!

Quick suggestion, would it be possible to have an option to convert the room measurements to metric?

Cheers,

Simon

good app
one suggestion, instead of slider, maybe a txtbox for users to enter the dimensions manually.

thanks

program is awesome...just wondering if in the next release or so, i can import a wall layout from sketchup or sumthin...i have a part of my room that is like a bay window shape. Or if you will have more options for room shapeand also to be able to rotate speakers too...once again, thx...works great!

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=78513&stc=1

is it good to have a small group, or wide group?

program is awesome...just wondering if in the next release or so, i can import a wall layout from sketchup or sumthin...i have a part of my room that is like a bay window shape. Or if you will have more options for room shapeand also to be able to rotate speakers too...once again, thx...works great!

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=78513&stc=1

is it good to have a small group, or wide group?

Hi Timmy. We've already had the discussion about rotating speakers and the fact is rotation doesn't make much of a difference when it comes to reflection points since the app casts such a wide cone off each speaker anyway.

Re small group or wide group...if you mean listener zones, the smaller the better. The smaller you make the green boxes, the less sound will reflect off the walls and hit them, resulting in smaller clusters of points, so you get to make less panels!

As for the past few posts about feature requests, I will consider all of them for future releases, but for the next version, which will be 1.1, I have now locked in the features that will be available. They include:

1. Cathedral Ceilings
2. Ability to setup speakers off-center in the room x-axis
3. Ability to setup listener zones off-center in the room x-axis
4. Ability to selectively disable listener zones
5. GUI redesigned to support these features
6. Sound now passes through listeners to back wall and reflects, resulting in
more reflections shown on back wall. Before I was assuming the green boxes intercepted all sound fired at them, which won't strictly be the case unless you're a family of fatheads. :)

behind the scenes improvements:
Raytracer now 2x faster than v1.02. Default scene on my machine is < 5 seconds. Can't make it much faster.
GUI drawing code is 3x faster
CPU utilization down 15% on my machine

I'm not sure when this release will be since I will be away most of the next month, and I am only about 1/2 done the modifications, but i'll do what I can.

Great!! Thanks for the info on the upcoming release. Looking forward to it :)
-Andrew

jeffreylebowski,
I really appreciate your program !!!

Would be really great if you integrate also the choice between english and metric system, all europen user will really appreciate that !

thanks
Emanuele

jeffreylebowski,
I really appreciate your program !!!

Would be really great if you integrate also the choice between english and metric system, all europen user will really appreciate that !


A Google search for 'imperial metric calculator' (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&rls=SNYI%2CSNYI%3A2005-09%2CSNYI%3Aen&q=imperial+metric+calculator) turns up 347, 000 hits. I think the features Chris has mentioned are more important than time spent reinventing the wheel. If people can't figure out how to convert inches to centimeters they probably shouldn't be building a theater in the first place...

-drin

I've finish tried it with my room dimensions, and doesn't fit there since the position of my front channel and screen is asymmetrical.

Could you add different x-shift for left and right front speaker, and an x-shift for center channel and screen ?


Also, my room is very little so z dimension is 11.8 feet, but I can go only down to 12 feet, could you make a little more excursion for room Z slider ?

thanks !

Emanuele

A Google search for 'imperial metric calculator' (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&rls=SNYI%2CSNYI%3A2005-09%2CSNYI%3Aen&q=imperial+metric+calculator) turns up 347, 000 hits. I think the features Chris has mentioned are more important than time spent reinventing the wheel. If people can't figure out how to convert inches to centimeters they probably shouldn't be building a theater in the first place...

-drin

Drin, actually I used the program converting each single measurement from metric system to english one, i'm not english but also not a retarded ;)
I think could be an improvement to have it directly in program.
And please, calm down before arguing in such tone with somebody you don't know, ok ? :mad:

bye
Emanuele

And please, calm down before arguing in such tone with somebody you don't know, ok ?

Who says I'm not calm?

As Chris stated in the subject line for this thread, the software is *free*. You get what you pay for, and since he has locked the feature list for the next version with no sign of metric conversion, if you want better, feel free to write it yourself

Who says I'm not calm?



This will show you why it seems like your not calm..Its how you deliver the message in writing..


"If people can't figure out how to convert inches to centimeters they probably shouldn't be building a theater in the first place"


Its a very fair request to add for Metric, if Chris doesnt, then he doesnt, but I think ALL Europeans will love to see this feature added...

Sorry for the thread hijack, folks. I promise I'll get off my soapbox in a minute.

<PREAMBLE>
Having spent almost 20 years managing corporate software engineering I think I have a pretty good idea of what design features constitute a waste of engineering time (anyone ever work with a marketing dept. before? :)), but of course your mileage may vary.
</PREAMBLE>

This will show you why it seems like your not calm..Its how you deliver the message in writing..

"If people can't figure out how to convert inches to centimeters they probably shouldn't be building a theater in the first place"

I think my initial statement was fair. If a person can't convert imperial to metric they really shouldn't be trying to build a theater! Simple mathematics is a rather basic skill involved in construction. Let's break it down a little:

1. Let's start with the premise that it takes roughly 12 hours to add a single feature to an application (as per Metrics and Models in Software Quality Engineering (2nd Edition) by Stephen H. Kan). That includes design time, coding, GUI redesign to support the feature and alpha testing. It does NOT include beta testing time since on AVSForum that's likely to be completed by users. It also doesn't include recoding time to correct bugs. After all, I know Chris' coding style and he doesn't write bugs. :D

2. I ran the app and using the very first link that Google came up with (http://www.helpwithdiy.com/metric_conversion_calculator.html) converted my metric room dimensions to imperial. Time: approximately 90 seconds to convert plus 2 seconds for the Google search.

3. I took the results the app provided and using the 1' grid approximated the locations of my panels. Time: approximately 2 minutes.

4. I took these results and using the same metric conversion tool converted these results from imperial to metric. Time: approximately 60 seconds.

Total time: 4 minutes 32 seconds.

I don't care WHERE you're from (I'm originally from Europe, then 21 years in Canada, a number in the U.S. and most recently Japan for 4 years), if you expect the programmer to spend at least 12 hours of his time implementing this feature to save you the 4 minutes and 32 seconds it'll take you to do the conversions yourself you should really examine your priorities, because I think they're a little messed up. Just my opinion, of course.

Its a very fair request to add for Metric, if Chris doesnt, then he doesnt, but I think ALL Europeans will love to see this feature added...

To you, I'm sure, but that doesn't mean it's worth the time it would take away from other features in the program that I think are more important.

Let me put it this way: which would you rather see:

o Cathedral Ceilings, or metric conversion?
o Ability to setup speakers off-center in the room x-axis, or metric conversion?
o Ability to setup listener zones off-center in the room x-axis, or metric conversion?
o Ability to selectively disable listener zones, or metric conversion?
o GUI redesigned to support these features, or metric conversion?
o Sound passing through listeners to back wall and reflecting, resulting in more reflections shown on back wall, or metric conversion?


I personally think it's much more important for Chris to provide support for the above-mentioned features than to add metric support. As I said in my initial post, there are hundreds of thousands of Google hits on 'imperial metric calculator'. In my opinion that's FAR less important than the feature list Chris posted.

Anyway, I'm not going to get any further into a flame war. You're entitled to ask for metric support, and I'm entitled to reply that I think it's a waste of time to add it when there are more important features to consider (again, my opinion).


If I invoke Godwin now that should end this, right? :D

-drin

Drin

All I said is that its a FAIR request, and if he doesnt want to add it, its up to him..so the point is mute..I think you bring valid point but the REQUEST is simply that..nothing more. I get what your saying.

I think we can move on from this..its seriously not our program to decide what we want and dont - but we are free to request.

Hi guys. Certainly no harm in asking for features. As I said i'll consider all requests after v1.1.

Great program! Thanks for sharing your skills.
good app
one suggestion, instead of slider, maybe a txtbox for users to enter the dimensions manually.
I'll second this request. Seems like it would be quicker to get it accurate. But it's way cool watching the room change as you slide ;-) Does't take much to amuse me :o

And I'd like to add... that most all the dimensions and grid reference 0,0,0 at the front left corner, but the seating positions are referenced from the back wall. This doesn't seem as intuitive to me and I think most of us are used to referencing seating at the distance from the screen. Maybe something to consider for a future revision.

Thanks again!
Chip

I'm really embarrassed to ask this - guess I'm the only old timer on the thread - but, could someone explain the logic of the position controls to me??? When I click and drag or use one of the qwasdz keys, I have no idea what's going to happen. I currently have my room upside down and the only way I can find to use it now is to turn my monitor upside down <g>.

Didn't like the #%^*%^@# Rubic Cube either <g>

Hi Andy. Imagine you are standing looking at the room. Press:

W to take a step forward
S to take a step backward
A to take a step to the left
D to take a step to the right
Q to levitate off the floor as high as you want
Z to hunker down as low as you want (even below the floor)

once you've mastered gliding around with those controls, you can add the ability to rotate your head from wherever you currently are "floating". Click and drag with the left mouse button to rotate your head. Drag left to look to the left, forward to look up, etc.

These are very common controls in computer games, but if you don't play those, it will take some getting used to. :)

Great program! Thanks for sharing your skills.

I'll second this request. Seems like it would be quicker to get it accurate. But it's way cool watching the room change as you slide ;-) Does't take much to amuse me :o



Hi Chip. Thanks! New gui controls are on the way for v1.1. :)

Thanks, Jeff.

Now it all makes sense.

Kewl program, now I just need to make a few sound absorption panels. ;)

Thanks
Look forward to seeing new features but, since my room is a basic box it works well.

How's the new software coming along?

What a wonderful tool. I'm going to have to verify if I did things right manually using the mirror method. :)

http://www.axiomaudio.com/porterplex.html

How's the new software coming along?

Hi Viper. I'm actually on a trip to the US right now (live in Canada), and i've only had a little time to work on the software. Right now v1.1 sits at about 70% complete. I return home April 18th, and I plan to release v1.1 within a week of that. I'll update the thread when it's ready to go. thx :)

Hey Jeff one question. I'm putting in my Axiom speaker dimensions and other dimensions. For some reason even though the height off the floor dimension says a min of 4", the slider will only go down to 1'10"? My mains are actually about 8" off the floor as they are sitting on a stage below my screen, but I can't go below 1'10" for some reason? What about people that have them on the floor? Or is this looking for the height from the tweeters to the floor?

Thanks, Randy

This thread definitely needs a sticky. It's late and I'm out of coffee. How do you contact the moderators to ask for a sticky?? The "Report Post" link says it should only be used to report spam or abusive posts.

Hey Jeff one question. I'm putting in my Axiom speaker dimensions and other dimensions. For some reason even though the height off the floor dimension says a min of 4", the slider will only go down to 1'10"? My mains are actually about 8" off the floor as they are sitting on a stage below my screen, but I can't go below 1'10" for some reason? What about people that have them on the floor? Or is this looking for the height from the tweeters to the floor?

Thanks, Randy

Hi Randy. The measurement is to the center of the speaker. If you try and drop the speaker so low that the bottom of it strikes the floor, the slider won't let you go any further (and a message in red text should inform you of a slider constraint preventing you from moving any further).

If your speakers are 2' tall, and you want the bottom edge of the speaker 8" off the floor, you would set the slider to 1'8" which is how high the center of the speaker would be off the floor.

This thread definitely needs a sticky. It's late and I'm out of coffee. How do you contact the moderators to ask for a sticky?? The "Report Post" link says it should only be used to report spam or abusive posts.

Hi Dodo Bird. Yes it would be nice if we could get a sticky on this! Hopefully if a few people ask the admins will agree. thx

Thanks Jeff,

That makes sense. How about the measurements for the first and second rows. I'm not finding a help file that explains what your asking. Are you asking about "ear" height, for example? It looks like your limited to like 1-3ft, so I'm trying to understand what your asking for here.

Thanks again, Randy

Thanks Jeff,

That makes sense. How about the measurements for the first and second rows. I'm not finding a help file that explains what your asking. Are you asking about "ear" height, for example? It looks like your limited to like 1-3ft, so I'm trying to understand what your asking for here.

Thanks again, Randy

Hi Randy. Yes, make the green boxes surround anywhere people's heads/ears will be in the theatre. The more you can narrow these boxes down the better, as they will result in smaller reflection zones on the walls, and therefore less panels for you to make.

Jeff:

AWESOME program! I do have one small feature suggestion though. Would it be possible to have the program show the recommended treatment areas including dimensions? I know you've got the grids there but it would be really slick if you were to, say, draw a box around the point clusters with panel dimensions and wall/ceiling location measurements. That doesn't really alter the core functionality - it's more of a convenience.

Kevin

Jeff:

AWESOME program! I do have one small feature suggestion though. Would it be possible to have the program show the recommended treatment areas including dimensions? I know you've got the grids there but it would be really slick if you were to, say, draw a box around the point clusters with panel dimensions and wall/ceiling location measurements. That doesn't really alter the core functionality - it's more of a convenience.

Kevin

Thanks SpaceMoose! I'll add your feature request to the list of things i'm considering beyond 1.1.

Also, the 1.1 release is going to be a little later than I hoped. I'm working on it, but various other projects are pulling my time away. Hopefully I can get it out in the next week.

I thought you guys might be interested in my process using Jeff's super-sweet little app.

First, let me say I'm a major freak about being able to visualize ideas before I build them... Hence, my addiction to building everything (and I do mean everything) in 3D with SketchUp to see the idea and make sure I like it before I start cutting, nailing, etc.

So, this app is great, right? Absolutely... render reflection points, use grid to take measurements. Done, right? Wait a sec, what will that LOOK like? Yes, I'm a complete freak. Anyway, it's not a problem at all with Jeff's app and SketchUp.

1. Render the reflection points in the app, and move around to get a nice oblique view of your wall.
2. Grab a screen shot.
3. Past into a photo editor and crop the wall down.
4. Import into SketchUp as a texture and map onto the wall.
5. Play with SketchUp to find appropriate panel sizes and locations (and if you're anal retentive like I am) make sure you like the layout and sizes.
6. Slap dimensions on your drawing in SketchUp and print to build/order/install panels!

Here are the renders from SketchUp:

Image texture mapped onto wall:
http://www.ecrabb.com/avs/frvrender1.jpg

2x4 ATS Acoustics panel placement idea:
http://www.ecrabb.com/avs/frvrender2.jpg

Hidden line rendering with a couple of dimensions:
http://www.ecrabb.com/avs/frvrender3.jpg

The author could even add an option to save the walls out as images ready to map in SketchUp... no photo app would be necessary, then.

Anyway, though some of you might find the process interesting.

Thanks for the cool app!

SC

Jeff:

Excellent work! I've been playing around with your app for sometime.

With acoustically transparent screens in false walls being all the rage these days, my suggestion for an improvement would be to add a Z-axis for screen placement. That way you could place your speakers behind the screen.

Edit:
On 2nd thought, if your algorithm does not consider the screen a reflective surface, then you wouldn't need the z-axis. If it does, you would want an option to consider the screen transparent and remove it from the equation.

All the best,

Gerry

Thanks for the kind words and suggestions Gerry and ecrabb.

Sorry for the delay in getting the next release out everyone. I'm not going to post a timeframe anymore, but I will get it out "when it's done". I've got a lot of other things eating my time up right now. Keep checking back. thx

This will show you why it seems like your not calm..Its how you deliver the message in writing..


"If people can't figure out how to convert inches to centimeters they probably shouldn't be building a theater in the first place"


Its a very fair request to add for Metric, if Chris doesnt, then he doesnt, but I think ALL Europeans will love to see this feature added...

And canadians too... :)

And canadians too... :)

Funny. I *am* Canadian, and the author of the software is too. All the Canadians I know are smart enough to use a calculator. :)


-drin

drin,

Seriously, your comments are not warranted in this thread.

Jeff asked for suggestions to make the program easier/better and people are providing them. I don't think he needs you (or anyone else) to filter those suggestions and belittle people (if you can't convert you shouldn't be building a theater, people I know are smart enough to use a calculator, etc.) for suggesting them.

He (and he alone) will choose what items he wants to add to future releases, if any.

There's no such thing as a bad suggestion, so stop trying to be the suggestion police. It's annoying, pointless and makes the thread that much harder to read/get through.

Stew4msu,
My sentiments exactly. Nothing to add to this...
I also think metric input would be a welcome addition.

Jeff...,
Great program you have written! Keep up the good work.

Best

drin,

Seriously, your comments are not warranted in this thread.


But yours are? I am as entitled to my opinions on this as you are. In fact, I happen to know the author of the software very well. BTW, if you had actually read the thread you'd know his name isn't "Jeff". I know how much time he's put into the software and I know his feature priority list. I'll comment where I please, until such time as this forum becomes private.

If you don't like them, you're free to not read my comments.



-drin

I'll just chime in here and say I have to agree with drin. He used a smiley face next to his "calculator" remark, so it's obvious that he's joking around... and that you guys probably need to lighten up a little.

The spirit of Drin's comments are valid anyway... that, assuming that the author's resources are limited (a pretty safe assumption), that said resources would be better spent adding other features instead of metric units... at this point in time. I tend to agree and our opinion is just as valid as is yours to the contrary.

These are discussion forums, and people are bound to disagree on certain issues ... which I find perfectly fine, as long as nobody is offensive or makes personal attacks. Some light-hearted chiding about converting a few measurements doesn't fit into that category, IMHO.

Some want metric units, some would rather see other features first. Opinions stated... Next topic.

SC

I can not believe that anyone is defending Drin. It would seem that perhaps you did not read all of his posts. Everybody is clearly entitled to their opinions/suggestions but the way that Drin has been responding is just not called for in a friendly environment like this one. His tone and wording is very uncalled for. His initial point may have been valid but you just have to look at how people have reacted to see that he has offended others in the way that he worded/presented it.

I can not believe that anyone is defending Drin.

Simply put, why do you care? We've never spoken before (that I know of), and this discussion *was* about a needless software feature people are asking for when that same feature is available to them by clicking 'Start->Programs->Accessories->Calculator' in Windows. Either that or by spending $1 at the dollar store for a nice calculator made in China.


It would seem that perhaps you did not read all of his posts. Everybody is clearly entitled to their opinions/suggestions but the way that Drin has been responding is just not called for in a friendly environment like this one. His tone and wording is very uncalled for. His initial point may have been valid but you just have to look at how people have reacted to see that he has offended others in the way that he worded/presented it.


Brian, I'm not going to get into a shouting match with you. I posted a long message in this thread about the cost of software engineering and why metric conversion is simply a waste of developer time when there are far more important things to do. If people can't be bothered to read an entire thread before posting their feature requests I can't be bothered with them - to me they're not worth my time.

As for my posting style, the way I word my posts is my prerogative. As I have stated previously you're under no obligation to read them.

As far as defending me goes, thanks ecrabb. I would guess that you're defending my points, not the way I make them. Thanks for the kind words anyway. :)


-drin

Anyway, I'm not going to get any further into a flame war. You're entitled to ask for metric support, and I'm entitled to reply that I think it's a waste of time to add it when there are more important features to consider (again, my opinion).


And almost 2 months later you decide to bring it back with the calculator remark. :confused:

Funny. I *am* Canadian, and the author of the software is too. All the Canadians I know are smart enough to use a calculator.

And almost 2 months later you decide to bring it back with the calculator remark. :confused:

With a happy face (a character conveniently deleted in your quote), after someone posted that they'd like metric because they're in Canada.

Originally Posted by drin
Anyway, I'm not going to get any further into a flame war. You're entitled to ask for metric support, and I'm entitled to reply that I think it's a waste of time to add it when there are more important features to consider (again, my opinion).


Please note the "I am entitled to reply that I think it's a waste of time..." in my quote above. That is what I did. What part of that confuses you?


-drin

OK, I've had it with this ridiculous argument. I feel it's perfectly valid to point out that metric should be FAR down the list of features for Chris' software given the other more important features that he's working on when he has time. Your opinion may differ. As I pointed out in an earlier post the time required to implement this feature far outweighs its usefulness when compared to the other features that are in the pipeline.

I propose the following: If you really feel metric is that important you have three options.

1. Use a calculator and do your own conversions.
2. Pay the software author for his time in adding this feature. If it's worth that much to you you should be willing to fork over some cash for it.
3. Write your own software to calculate first reflection points, including metric calculations.

I'm not going to argue this any more. I'm entitled to my opinion, and it's based on many years in the software engineering industry as a programmer, project manger and director of software R&D. You are entitled to disagree with it, but at least try to have an informed opinion rather than blindly typing "I need metric".

Argue back all you want. I'm done wasting my time justifying myself.

-drin

http://www.kaitaia.com/funny/pictures/ThreadHijack/thread_direction.gif


LOL but seriously, Jeff, how's the new program working out for you?

Nice I need services :)

Great program!

Should the size input of the speakers only include a square encompassing the front drivers?

I have some Def Tech bipole speakers for L/R. How do the rear-firing drivers affact how to treat the walls? Should the front wall be treated in that case? Can those drivers be modeled?

What about reflection for surround speakers? Do you treat the walls for those reflections?

Program improvement suggestions:
1. What about shortcuts to orthographic views of the room?
2. My 50" TV feels left out of the fun.....60" is the minimum...
3. What about modeling wall openings? If you had a clean slate, could you put wall openings at the reflection points instead of wall treatments? (Just a thought)
4. What about columns in the room? That seems to be too common around here...

Thats enough questions for this session.

thanks again for your effort!

OK, I've had it with this ridiculous argument. I feel it's perfectly valid to point out that metric should be FAR down the list of features for Chris' software given the other more important features that he's working on when he has time. Your opinion may differ. As I pointed out in an earlier post the time required to implement this feature far outweighs its usefulness when compared to the other features that are in the pipeline.

I propose the following: If you really feel metric is that important you have three options.

1. Use a calculator and do your own conversions.
2. Pay the software author for his time in adding this feature. If it's worth that much to you you should be willing to fork over some cash for it.
3. Write your own software to calculate first reflection points, including metric calculations.

I'm not going to argue this any more. I'm entitled to my opinion, and it's based on many years in the software engineering industry as a programmer, project manger and director of software R&D. You are entitled to disagree with it, but at least try to have an informed opinion rather than blindly typing "I need metric".

Argue back all you want. I'm done wasting my time justifying myself.

-drin


You can't really be that obtuse.

It's not about your point or your opinion. It's about your condescending attitude toward other posters and your need to keep reiterating the same thing over and over. The suggestion for metric (which I could care less about BTW) may be far down the priority list for you and me (and maybe for the OP), but who cares? It's a suggestion. Every suggestion that might improve the product shoud be worthwhile, no matter how much time it takes.

IF the OP thinks it's stupid and won't consider it or if he wants to rate the suggestions in their priority order, then that's fine. It's not for you or me to decide. Just get over it. Release your baggage and go to your happy place.

Just trying this out. Thanks for the program this should help me out at my stage (picking out sound treatments :) )

Cheers
Calvin

Great program!

Should the size input of the speakers only include a square encompassing the front drivers?


Hi mjrichar. I'm amazed it took this long for someone to ask that question! I expected it on the first day. :) I intended people to make the rectangles the size of the entire front face of the speaker.



I have some Def Tech bipole speakers for L/R. How do the rear-firing drivers affact how to treat the walls? Should the front wall be treated in that case? Can those drivers be modeled?

What about reflection for surround speakers? Do you treat the walls for those reflections?


All of the discussions I have seen do not recommend treating reflections for surround speakers. Also I have not seen anyone treat a front wall specifically for first reflections. I have seen them treated for bass, which would cover first reflections as well automatically.



Program improvement suggestions:
1. What about shortcuts to orthographic views of the room?
2. My 50" TV feels left out of the fun.....60" is the minimum...
3. What about modeling wall openings? If you had a clean slate, could you put wall openings at the reflection points instead of wall treatments? (Just a thought)
4. What about columns in the room? That seems to be too common around here...

Thats enough questions for this session.

thanks again for your effort!

You're welcome and thanks for the suggestions. Orthographic views were actually planned for the first release, and I dropped it to save time. I'll add them at some point. I like the columns idea as well. 50" screens (and smaller) will be possible in the next release. Wall openings are a matter that will need careful consideration, and may be handled better by adding support for loading Google Sketchup files, rather than me trying to add more and more modelling tools to the program.

You guys are sure up for a scrap on the metric issue huh? LOL. I saw there were about 15 new posts since I had read the thread, and I thought hmmm...some new discussion...good. Then I discover it's all a fight about metric.

Alright, I will put the issue to rest once and for all, then hopefully the thread can get back on track.

Without picking sides in battle metric (is this Iron Chef?), I can tell you that Europeans will find it easier to use the program in the next release, without the need for a calculator.

All of the discussions I have seen do not recommend treating reflections for surround speakers. Also I have not seen anyone treat a front wall specifically for first reflections. I have seen them treated for bass, which would cover first reflections as well automatically.


More specifically you want more diffusion in surround and rear of the room.

Being very general (YMMV):

1 Make screen wall as dead as possible so no bouncing sound energy can mix with your front Left/Center/Right soundstage as this is the most crucial.

2 Catch the first reflections of the L/C/R on the side walls, floor, and ceiling

3 The surrounds (side and/or rear) are meant to surround you so it is no use to catch their first reflections with absorption, use diffusion so that sound bounces off randomly and 'surrounds' the listeners more.

4 You still want some absorption in the rear, especially to catch the reflections from the front speakers but you do not want to completely deaden the rear wall like the front wall is, alternate absorption and diffusion for the sides and the rear.

5 Even though I put up some very basic acoustic thoughts, it is much better to read about the topic yourself and just get to know how sound interacts in a room.

Even though I put up some very basic acoustic thoughts, it is much better to read about the topic yourself and just get to know how sound interacts in a room.

I can guarantee you that Chris (aka Jeffrey Lebowski) knows how sound interacts in a room. He's built enough theaters now to know that very well.

-drin

Hi mjrichar. I'm amazed it took this long for someone to ask that question! I expected it on the first day. :) I intended people to make the rectangles the size of the entire front face of the speaker.

.
:) I don't think I'm the average user...I over analyze everything!

So what you're saying is that the speaker should be modeled with the whole speaker face regardless if the drivers are only in the upper third. Won't that give a first reflection area that is taller than really exists? :confused:

thanks again!

:) I don't think I'm the average user...I over analyze everything!

So what you're saying is that the speaker should be modeled with the whole speaker face regardless if the drivers are only in the upper third. Won't that give a first reflection area that is taller than really exists? :confused:

thanks again!

hi mjrichar. Assuming sound comes from the entire front face of the speaker is an approximation to what happens in the real world, and it may result in a first reflection zone slightly larger than necessary. Most speakers I have seen have multiple drivers along the height of the speaker, so i was comfortable with this assumption. If you have speakers with drivers limited to a very specific portion of the speaker face, feel free to model a smaller speaker in the program and limit it to that region.

This is a great program, thanks for putting this out for our use.

I have one questions, I wasn't about to get the grids to work on the side walls, any ideas?

Thanks

This software looks like it will really assist me; however, I can seem to get it working. I downloaded it and when I try to run it, it says "Do you want to open this file?" Then under file type, it says "Unknown file type". Any suggestions as to why? Not sure what I did wrong? Thanks.

Could you add a printing in color with the grids of the different walls, floors , and the ceiling feature.

Great tool. Thanks for your work. I look forward to seeing the next version when you get it finished. All of my thoughts were covered by other posts, and metric isn't a priority for me either. :rolleyes:

I've finish tried it with my room dimensions, and doesn't fit there since the position of my front channel and screen is asymmetrical.

Could you add different x-shift for left and right front speaker, and an x-shift for center channel and screen ?
Emanuele

Awesome program, very smart. Another vote for non-asymmetrical setups! ;-) I know we might be a small group but it would be cool if I could move my screen and speakers over a little. Having said that I've seen a few HT that have doors in the front of the room so they have to be slightly off center. So I think a lot of people would find it useful. Thanks!

excellent work, Jeff! Many Kudos to you ! :D

Only one small thing.....

Can we have the size limit of the speakers increased?

I have Magnepan (http://www.magnepan.com/model_MG_36) MG3.6R speakers which are 6 feet tall. The software wont let me put a speaker more than 4' tall.

Also some speakers (like mine) are dipoles....they radiate both front and back. Any chance you can incorporate that option in this too?

Again...excellent work !

Going to acoustic design.....does it mean that basically the reflection points are the regions which should be damped? :confused:

Please install DirectX first

google it

This software looks like it will really assist me; however, I can seem to get it working. I downloaded it and when I try to run it, it says "Do you want to open this file?" Then under file type, it says "Unknown file type". Any suggestions as to why? Not sure what I did wrong? Thanks.

Going to acoustic design.....does it mean that basically the reflection points are the regions which should be damped? :confused:

Rajiv: Yes, that's what should happen at the first reflection points.

-drin

Wow, this program looks awesome! I'm wondering, though, how accurate it would be with my Martin Logan Clarity speakers? They are dipoles and play out the front and back. And because their sound stage is really the height of the speaker, does that mean the reflection point is off because of ceiling and floor calculations?

I'm a n00b at all this so pardon the multi questions!

Well, obviously the first reflection point for the rear-firing drivers would be the wall right behind the speaker. Although, honestly, I'd just turn off the rear drivers if you have that option. In my mind, rear firing drivers are for causing more sound reflections, something that most of us want to avoid. It's a way to cause more sound reflection in the room giving a more enveloping sound field, but a less discrete one. This may be desirable for music, but probably kills the soundstage for movies.

Then again, I'm new at this too. I've got NHTs with the rear drivers and just turn that feature off.

Can you make the program accommodate speakers taller than 4'? Also, can you explain what point the shift is from? Is it the center?

Well, obviously the first reflection point for the rear-firing drivers would be the wall right behind the speaker. Although, honestly, I'd just turn off the rear drivers if you have that option.

Nope you cant just "turn them off" as there is nothing to turn off. These are not regular speakers. Take a look here:
http://www.us.martinlogan.com/speaker_intro/clarity.html

I have dipoles too....but not electrostats. I got Maggies' Planar speakers.

Both these type of speakers radiate front and back using only a sheet of plastic as a driver.

In my mind, rear firing drivers are for causing more sound reflections, something that most of us want to avoid. It's a way to cause more sound reflection in the room giving a more enveloping sound field, but a less discrete one. This may be desirable for music, but probably kills the soundstage for movies.




No, not really. Actually it may improve the soundstage. You got to listen to the Maggie's CC3 center channel. It is heads and shoulders above any speaker I have heard. The dialogue intelligibility is just amazing.... but then again...they speakers are unconventional.


Then again, I'm new at this too. I've got NHTs with the rear drivers and just turn that feature off.

not 100% sure but those will be bi-poles, not dipoles right?

Not the same beast as a Maggie or a 'stat. But you may want to experiment further. :)

Nope you cant just "turn them off" as there is nothing to turn off. These are not regular speakers. Take a look here:
http://www.us.martinlogan.com/speaker_intro/clarity.html

You can turn off your NAC, but the e-stat is fixed. For mains, I'd still say dampen behind the speaker. For surrounds I can see it, but I don't really know what use having your main L/R sound channel coming from multiple locations would be. Just seems to me it would confuse the sound.

No, not really. Actually it may improve the soundstage. You got to listen to the Maggie's CC3 center channel. It is heads and shoulders above any speaker I have heard. The dialogue intelligibility is just amazing.... but then again...they speakers are unconventional.
If the speakers are unconventional, so will the setup be. I'd imagine that getting DD 5.1 to sound "perfect" would require imitating perfectly the DD speaker recommendation. This means direct firing L,R,C and dipole surrounds, if my memory serves me correctly. If you have dipole mains, this tells me you'd need to dampen behind the speaker.



not 100% sure but those will be bi-poles, not dipoles right?

Not the same beast as a Maggie or a 'stat. But you may want to experiment further. :)
No, they're directs. Because the switch stays in the "off" position. ;)

i just found this thread this a.m. can't open the program after i unziped it.went and updated my directx stuff,still no luck,any ideas anyone? looks like a neat program hope to figure out how to get it open. thanks

What's the error message?

1) I would like to echo previous post - Great Great tool - thanks for making it freely available.

2) I agree with two ealier posts that by definition the first reflection of a rear firing speaker would be the front wall and that the front wall should be treated. I don't think there is any special additions required to the program for this (or metric).

3) I also have an asymetric room with the screen (and speakers) pushed several feet to the right. I would be very interested in being able to offset the center line of the acoustics.

Thanks again.
gene

For the people asking for making giant speaker baffle to find first reflections, the only frequencies that are really critical when it comes to locating first reflections are the midwoofers and tweeter so just put the size of your speaker baffle minus the woofers.

I would like to see this program expanded for irregular rooms and rooms with angled ceilings/walls. ;)

I do understand your point but many people with tall speakers have tall tweeters too. For example my Magnepan MG3.6R has a narrow ribbon tweeter which is almost 5 feet tall. Midrange's hieght is the same too.

Similarly, I know other speakers which use an array of tweeters and mids (one example is McIntosh)



For the people asking for making giant speaker baffle to find first reflections, the only frequencies that are really critical when it comes to locating first reflections are the midwoofers and tweeter so just put the size of your speaker baffle minus the woofers.

I would like to see this program expanded for irregular rooms and rooms with angled ceilings/walls. ;)

Excellent job Jeffrey! It works like a charm. And Thanks too VIper Co., I too needed that dll.

Funny. I *am* Canadian, and the author of the software is too. All the Canadians I know are smart enough to use a calculator. :)


-drin
I am currently on page 3 of this thread. Before I read further, am sorry to say, drin, that IMHO, you are spoiling the fun in this thread, and you just come across as either a rabble-rouser or a troll. Most Canadians I know (am also one, :o) will probably not be proud of your attacking contributions here. Sorry.

Off my own soap-box now.

duwdu

duwdu,

The month of May just called and says it wants your post back. Seriously, the horse was dead 3 MONTHS ago. Please leave it that way. Besides, you're now about as guilty of stirring the pot as anyone else. I'll say it again: Some of you really need to lighten up.

SC

duwdu,

The month of May just called and says it wants your post back. Seriously, the horse was dead 3 MONTHS ago. Please leave it that way. Besides, you're now about as guilty of stirring the pot as anyone else. I'll say it again: Some of you really need to lighten up.

SC
The philosophy you espouse (of letting 'sleeping dogs lie') ought to have restrained you from making further comments on my own comment as well. But I imagine that, you as the only public supporter of drin's uncalled-for tirades, would want to have the last word on the matter... so go ahead and have it; am done on this particular issue.

Thanks. I was aware of the irony in my post when I posted.

Apparently, you can't read. If you could, you'd know that I was never "supporting" drin or anyone else for that matter. All I was say then, in my last post, and again now is: Try not to have the sensitivity of a teenage girl and ignore posts you don't like instead of getting bent out of shape about it and feeling the need to "right a wrong." That's all.

Tag. You're it.

SC

This thread needs to be sticky, I got a lot of people asking me on my thread where the software is :)

BTW: It kicks arss, thx for making it!

Thanks for taking the time to create this program.
Well done.

Rastus

Hi everyone. Just a quick note to let you know I haven't abandoned development on the first reflections tool, but it is definitely still on the back burner. I'm searching for a graphics programming job at the moment, either in game development, commercial/military flight simulation, research simulations, or something similar. This requires as many graphics demos as I can pump out, and as much math knowledge as possible. As you can imagine, this stuff is eating up all my time right now. Once I get settled into a position, i'll update the first reflections tool.

In the unlikely event anyone on here needs a graphics programmer with a B.Sc in Computing Science, send me a PM. thx

Good luck on the job search.
Based on what we've seen here, you shouldn't have any problem whatsoever.
Thank you for all your hard work!
It's greatly appreciated.

I *really* need this to run under Windows Vista. I have a XP virtual machine, but it fails to run.

Please update it to run properly on Vista. Thanks!

Runs fine on XP

No, it does not run in a XP virtual machine. Virtual machines do NOT support 3D operations, so the software fails.

No, it does not run in a XP virtual machine. Virtual machines do NOT support 3D operations, so the software fails.

Well it IS * free * and I guess you will be at the mercy of whether the author of the program wants to spend the time to make it work in vista ... good luck

or better yet ... borrow a computer with a REAL copy of XP and run it there :cool:

Ya unfortunately everyone I know is running Vista.

Everyone you know is running Vista? That's crazy. Practically everybody I know has at least one or two XP boxes just sitting around. Even the few people I know who ARE running Vista, dual-boot XP.

Just pick up an old P4 for $100 and throw it under the desk. You'll be able to run FRV on it and as a bonus, you can use it to run the dozen or two other apps you'll wish you could use on Vista. ;)

SC

Crazy? Hardly...Vista is a lot better than XP in most respects. I have a virtual XP machine that I can use should I need it. But the reliance of this program on DX9 3D libraries is the killer.

One note... the app won't work in Parallels on the Mac. SC

Good reason to buy a PC:)

Actually, that's not a good reason! Any time I really need to use a less-stable, less-secure, lower-quality OS, I can boot Windows on the Mac. ;) Hey, you started it.

Back when I posted that, Parallels was the only way I had to run Windows on my new (then) MacBook Pro. That was a year ago. Now, I have Boot Camp installed and can boot into Windows or OS X. FRV not running in Parallels was because of some shortcomings in the Parallels graphics hardware emulation. I think it runs at 16-bit max and FRV expects 24/32-bit.

A Mac with Boot Camp (Leopard 10.5) is pretty sweet. It's the only (easy) way to take your pick between running Windows or OS X at a moment's notice. I love the flexibility. I run OS X 90% of the time because it's awesome for my work (video and digital content creation). I run Final Cut Pro, DVD Studio Pro, Photoshop, Flash, Illustrator, etc. But, when I need Windows Media Encoder, MPEG editing tools, etc., I can just launch Parallels and be running Windows tools in a snap... and with Boot Camp, I can reboot in Windows if I need to.

SC

Actually, that's not a good reason! Any time I really need to use a less-stable, less-secure, lower-quality OS, I can boot Windows on the Mac. ;) Hey, you started it.

Back when I posted that, Parallels was the only way I had to run Windows on my new (then) MacBook Pro. That was a year ago. Now, I have Boot Camp installed and can boot into Windows or OS X. FRV not running in Parallels was because of some shortcomings in the Parallels graphics hardware emulation. I think it runs at 16-bit max and FRV expects 24/32-bit.

A Mac with Boot Camp (Leopard 10.5) is pretty sweet. It's the only (easy) way to take your pick between running Windows or OS X at a moment's notice. I love the flexibility. I run OS X 90% of the time because it's awesome for my work (video and digital content creation). I run Final Cut Pro, DVD Studio Pro, Photoshop, Flash, Illustrator, etc. But, when I need Windows Media Encoder, MPEG editing tools, etc., I can just launch Parallels and be running Windows tools in a snap... and with Boot Camp, I can reboot in Windows if I need to.

SC

That actually does sound like a sweet setup. I will give MAC credit where they deserve it. Right now they lead with video editing and their product marketing. I do agree that they are stable (not more so than windows however).

My big gripe with Apple is the way they design their product. If someone wants higher cost proprietary hardware that will run higher cost proprietary software with little or no flexibility (these are "supposed" to be built for the creatvie types right?) then Apple products may be right for them. For instance, i won an iPod Nano at a tech conference and gave it to my wife. After about 6 months the battery will not hold a charge. I "crack" the case to find that the strange looking battery is soldered onto the main board?!?! I found a replacement battery for $29.99. Then i would have to de-solder and then re-solder the battery to the board. Then i would still have the proprietary iTunes software that converted all of my music tracks into proprietary who knows what......I through in the trash and bought my wife an MP3 player that uses a single AAA battery.

I had a long post written, but it's way too OT in this thread. Let me just say this: Your statements about the Mac or Mac OS being "proprietary", "high-cost", and having "little or no flexibility" simply aren't true. To be honest, I could easily make the case that the Mac (especially the OS) is LESS proprietary, more flexible, and more secure!

As for price, depending on the end of the market you're talking about, the Mac may be more expensive or it may be less expensive (yes, some Macs are actually LESS expensive than *comparable* Windows boxes. I'd be happy to engage you via PM if you're interested in discussing it further.

Back on topic with FRV! Coincidentally, 72Scout popped this thread back up during the week I'm in the midst of hanging my acoustic panels. I used FRV and SketchUp at least six months ago to locate the best spots to install them and I'm finally getting around to hanging them this week. I'll post pics this weekend if anybody's interested.

SC

I had a long post written, but it's way too OT in this thread. Let me just say this: Your statements about the Mac or Mac OS being "proprietary", "high-cost", and having "little or no flexibility" simply aren't true. To be honest, I could easily make the case that the Mac (especially the OS) is LESS proprietary, more flexible, and more secure!

As for price, depending on the end of the market you're talking about, the Mac may be more expensive or it may be less expensive (yes, some Macs are actually LESS expensive than *comparable* Windows boxes. I'd be happy to engage you via PM if you're interested in discussing it further.

Back on topic with FRV! Coincidentally, 72Scout popped this thread back up during the week I'm in the midst of hanging my acoustic panels. I used FRV and SketchUp at least six months ago to locate the best spots to install them and I'm finally getting around to hanging them this week. I'll post pics this weekend if anybody's interested.

SC



Just gotta say, in my 25 years in the IT industry, apple guys are still the little itty bitty minority of computers but they sure spout out the loudest fanboy talk and ignore the basic founding principles of apple computers that you just listed as not being true.

Sigh. Here we go.

I'm sorry. I assumed we were talking about current products and technology - you know, the present. I'm happy to discuss Apple's company and product history, Windows 3.1's IRQ conflicts and Mac OS 8's cooperative multitasking, but I don't see how any of those topics is very useful or relevant now.

Here's something useful and relevant: Apple sold over 2.2 million Macs (over six billion dollars' worth) last quarter and market share is now near 7%. How many computers does Apple have to sell before people stop referring to the Mac as the "little itty bitty minority of computers"? Who's the fanboy?

If you'd like to talk current tech, let's compare how much of the Windows operating system is open source and uses open standards versus how much of Mac OS X is open source and uses open standards. That we're even discussing whether Apple is somehow more "proprietary" in nature than Windows is completely ridiculous.

I've already wasted more time on this than I should have.

SC

Actually Apple is the third largest computer maker now. As a global engineer/developer there is no better platform. I'm able to run Windows, Unix, Linux, OS X and what ever else I want. I can do all of this native or in emulation.

Yes I'm a huge Apple supporter, hell I have almost a million dollars of Apple Stock in my retirement fund. But I also realize Apple and Microsoft are really not that different. Both a monopolies it's just Apple is not that big of a threat as of yet. Except for the iTunes / iPod thang.

This is a really old argument, and there is no point. Yes it would be nice to have a OSX version of this. I'd like to take this on but I don't know all the formulas and my time is limited maybe in the near future I can work on this.

Just gotta say, in my 25 years in the IT industry, apple guys are still the little itty bitty minority of computers but they sure spout out the loudest fanboy talk and ignore the basic founding principles of apple computers that you just listed as not being true.

Hmm I work for lots of Government and private sector accounts that have tons of macs. Both platforms have issues. Both have strong points. This is such an old argument there is no point to it.

I remember one time having an argument with an IBM rep about Apple. At the time we were an IBM shop. I pointed out to him that there were more IBM parts in my Macs than in the IBM Netvistas and Zpros. But that was during the G5 days. Today the Mac platform is 99.5% the same except for the design and the special hard ID ASIC Chip.

The OS will run on anything if not for the hardware ID chip detection. But that has been cracked. I'm done there is no point to this. There are just as many reasons to bash Windows as there are for Macs. But I do find Windows users are less open to admitting that.

Yes it would be nice to have a OSX version of this. I'd like to take this on but I don't know all the formulas and my time is limited maybe in the near future I can work on this.
Yeah, that would be great, Don! Get to work on that, would ya? Christmas break is right around the corner - what else will you have to do while you watch TV and eat leftovers? ;)

SC

Hmm well wish it was that easy... My college days are long go. I've been on the road for a few months and will be for another 9 weeks. As we talked before I'm a CIO, CEO, Developer I do everything. And I have to travel the world. Not much time for me theater either :(

I'll see what I can do I'm itching to try out the new Xcode.

I was just kidding, Don. I'm painfully aware of how limited time is between work, family, and everything else... and I don't travel like you do. Whatever you make, you earn it when you have to be on the road all the time. I simply couldn't do it.

Back OT, I got all eight of my ATS acoustic panels hung last night. It was way more work than I thought it would be, but wow, was it worth it. When I was finished (at almost 2 am), I played some music and a couple movie trailers... Vocals were better, dialog was much improved, and the sound from the mains was noticeably cleaner. I can't wait until tonight when I can crank it up.

SC

Enjoy :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8H2_E_cAyoM

Hilarious !

ROTFL !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :D

Enjoy :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8H2_E_cAyoM

Enjoy :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8H2_E_cAyoM

So funny!! So True!!

3 times the cost, 3 times the problems , twice as slow!

You have to ask Steve Jobs via text message if you can upgrade.

In a PC stick in all different parts from all different vendors, install the OS and guess what it works. Thousands of millions of different hardware configurations out there in the world of PC's and if something goes wrong it is because Windows is a terrible OS. Blame Bill!! Mac is made by, well Mac. They control all of the hardware that is in that box, and they still can't make it stable all of the time.

Hey buddy, Your fly is down. What? You don't care? Oh, Ok go ahead, keep supporting apple!

great program, havnt tried it yet

For anyone who might be interested, I was just able to use FRV 1.02 in Windows running under Parallels on an Intel MacBook Pro. Not sure if it was the last update to Parallels that enabled it, but it works perfectly now... and it's extremely fast compared to the old Windows machine I used it on. 13-14 seconds to completely solve vs.... I don't know... 5 or 10 minutes or something on the old 1.8 P4m Windows notebook I have kicking around.

At least it's on option for Intel Mac folks now if you don't have a native Windows machine sitting around.

SC

3 times the cost, 3 times the problems , twice as slow!
You can't really be that clueless, can you?

Let's see... 3 times the cost. Yeah, that makes sense. :rolleyes: Yes, some Macs are more expensive, some are the same, and some are actually cheaper than comparable PC hardware. Yes, I said cheaper. At the high end some Apple notebooks and desktops are cheaper than comparable Dell hardware. So, that statement's baseless.

3 times the problems. Um, no. By any measure, Macs are more trouble-free and higher-quality than most Windows hardware. Yet another baseless statement.

Twice as slow? Hmm.. That's weird. Macs are now running most of the same Intel hardware that a lot of higher-end Windows kit uses, but with a lighter, simpler, more secure, more streamlined operating system. Even running Windows, Mac hardware compares very favorably - or better. Have you seen this article?

In Pictures: The Most Notable Notebooks of 2007 (http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,136649-page,3-c,notebooks/article.html
)

The fastest Windows Vista notebook we've tested this year is a Mac. Try that again: The fastest Windows Vista notebook we've tested this year--or for that matter, ever--is a Mac.
So, do you ever read anything new, or do you just read articles on Microsoft and regurgitate stuff you heard about Macs 10 years ago?

In a PC stick in all different parts from all different vendors, install the OS and guess what it works. Thousands of millions of different hardware configurations out there in the world of PC's and if something goes wrong it is because Windows is a terrible OS.
Wait, I'm confused. In one sentence, you say you throw all this stuff together and it just works. Then, in the next, you say when something goes wrong, everybody blames Windows. Which is it? Does it just work, or does stuff go wrong?

Mac is made by, well Mac. They control all of the hardware that is in that box, and they still can't make it stable all of the time.
Actually, Macs are extremely stable - just as, if not more stable than your average Windows box - and have been for years, now. Again, do you ever read anymore or did you quit after you installed Windows 2000?

Apple doesn't "control" third-party peripheral vendors any more than does Microsoft. Macs can take thousands of PCI, PCI-E, AGP, PCMCIA, ExpressCard/34, USB, IEEE-1394, etc. devices, too. WTF are you even talking about? You mean, Apple controls what hardware is in the box when they ship it? Yeah, I guess they do. Don't Dell, HP, Sony, etc. control what hardware is in their boxes when they ship it, too?

You might want to consider reading up a little on what some other non-Microsoft platforms might have to offer. If for no other reason, so you don't write totally uninformed ignorant posts. Or, I guess you can just keep your head in the sand. Your choice.

FYI, I have 15+ years of experience using, installing, integrating, and repairing both platforms, as well as SGI and assorted other hardware and software... so I'm no Apple/Mac fanboy.

Sorry for the thread detour.

SC

I own a MAC and a PC and like both.

I always am amazed that there are guys like you that take a fairly innocent post and turn it into a personal attack against someone that even if he may have been misinformed on certain details certainly did not deserve the kind of attack that you are so quick to deliver from the relative safety behind a computer screen. :rolleyes:
Oh, please. I may have been harsh - even rude - in my last post, but a personal attack? Hardly. I made no reference to the poster's personality, beliefs, lifestyle, convictions or principles. In my admittedly brash post though, based on remarks he made, I questioned how informed he really was. I stand by that - his IT Manager title notwithstanding.

You really are not sorry for the thread detour as it gave you a chance to stomp on that posters head and then post your " pedigree "
No, actually I am sorry. I think this little piece of software is a very, very cool piece of software. This software is like driving a Ferrari, while the "sliding mirror" method and reflecting lines in a CAD app are both like driving Model-T Fords or even a horse and buggy.

The poster has his "IT Manager" title in his profile, so I merely stated my qualifications as an objective user of many platforms. Period. It's hardly any sort of "pedigree" as you call it.

Look, I've been participating in this thread since the very beginning and have provided some input to the developer about it. I've been supportive and complimentary of his efforts. Then, more than six months later, somebody shows up and see that I'm using a Mac and feel it necessary to make flippant and degrading remarks about MY platform choice. Then, a few others chime in and accuse me of being a fan-boy or of being ignorant of history (personal attacks - neither of which are true, I might add). Then, on top of it all, I get accused of being an opportunist. Nice.

Grow up and think about how what you post ... even if you are partially correct ... how it affects that original poster when you make it a personal attack ( or the rest of us that get the displeasure in reading it :( )
Thanks. I appreciate the advice. Sorry I gave you displeasure. Consider how that poster when he compared me to "having my fly down" and "sticking my head in the sand" made me feel. Is that what constitutes an "innocent post" to you?

This is a forum that is supposed to help each other ... try to help someone understand your point of view ... dont trash them for having a different point of view based on their current knowledge to this point.
I think I might understand what you're talking about, considering I've been at AVS for well over 5 years. In that time, I've helped and have been helped by hundreds - probably even thousands - of fellow AVS'ers. I take pride in both the information I've posted, and in the way I've conducted myself in my years on AVS.

SC

Oh well.... (roll eyes)
I always wonder....Why do the Mac dudes/dudettes always have to defend Macs so vehmently?

Makes Macs more of a "cult".

It is just another OS. If you like it, hey! good for you !

Get over it.

So, here's this sequence of events as I see them:
1. Windows user flips Mac user some friendly crap.
2. Mac user flips some friendly crap back and explains his choice - in effect, saying "My platform, my choice, here's why I like it. Now, leave me alone".
3. Windows users continue and post some ignorant remarks about the Mac, Apple and its users.
4. Mac user calls Windows user on the remarks, and explains where they're wrong. It goes largely unanswered.
5. Several Windows users chime in and criticize the Mac platform and make denigrating remarks about its users (in effect, me). "your fly is down". WTF is that?
6. Mac user gets gets annoyed with the whole thing and calls them on it.
7. Mac user gets accused of making personal attacks, being childish, a fan-boy, part of a cult and then finally told to "get over it".

Did I miss anything?

Oh well.... (roll eyes)
I always wonder....Why do the Mac dudes/dudettes always have to defend Macs so vehmently?

Makes Macs more of a "cult".
Maybe because Windows dudes/dudettes always have to run around and crap on Macs and Mac users all the time. Chicken, meet egg. It's especially frustrating when most of them have never even used the OS or hardware - or if they did, it was a different decade.

It is just another OS. If you like it, hey! good for you !
You took the words right out of my mouth. Use whatever you want - I don't care. I use both constantly. I don't go around dropping into threads and making jokes (intended to hurt or annoy people) about Windows users or blue screens, though.

Get over it.
Look back at my posts. I've tried several times.

SC

I tried VERY hard to resist posting but finally gave in! Apologies to the thread starter, I promise no more from me!

We have plenty of macs at work and we (painfully) integrate them into a Windows domain. I am the Sys admin here handling mostly the servers. The desktop admin is the guy who battles with mac-windows all day. I too pitch in when he gets in a fix.


.......... about Windows users or blue screens, though.

SC


I have seen plenty of black screens on Macs too. (They crash with a black screen) Few years back I did not know much about Macs and was surprised when I saw a Mac crash (People told me that Macs never crashed)


I soon learnt, it is just another OS. If it floats someone's boat that is good for him! :D Everything in this world has its plus and minus points. Mac's hardware sure looks pretty!

Sure would be nice to come to this thread and find messages that relate to the message title topic. I think that there are whole sites that deal with the PC vs Mac arguments.

Best
Ray
PC an Mac user

I tried VERY hard to resist posting but finally gave in! Apologies to the thread starter, I promise no more from me!

We have plenty of macs at work and we (painfully) integrate them into a Windows domain. I am the Sys admin here handling mostly the servers. The desktop admin is the guy who battles with mac-windows all day. I too pitch in when he gets in a fix.





I have seen plenty of black screens on Macs too. (They crash with a black screen) Few years back I did not know much about Macs and was surprised when I saw a Mac crash (People told me that Macs never crashed)


I soon learnt, it is just another OS. If it floats someone's boat that is good for him! :D Everything in this world has its plus and minus points. Mac's hardware sure looks pretty!

We don’t have mac's at work (I am the IT manager) But I can give a story about when I worked in the computer lab at PSU in about 1995. We had 15 PC's (win 3.1 lol) and 15 Power Mac's. I was the guy to turn all the computers on every morning. Every single day, every PC came up just fine and every single day 2-3 of the macs turned on dead. :)

Is there any chance that ALL the Mac/PC posters would just delete their posts and leave the thread that much less cluttered? I have NO interest in the platform topic, and the whole derailment is disrespectful to the OP and distracting to most readers.

Fine with me. Would it be alright with you if I leave my post about using FRV in Parallels on the Mac, though?

SC

Hmm I work for lots of Government and private sector accounts that have tons of macs. Both platforms have issues. Both have strong points. This is such an old argument there is no point to it.

I remember one time having an argument with an IBM rep about Apple. At the time we were an IBM shop. I pointed out to him that there were more IBM parts in my Macs than in the IBM Netvistas and Zpros. But that was during the G5 days. Today the Mac platform is 99.5% the same except for the design and the special hard ID ASIC Chip.

The OS will run on anything if not for the hardware ID chip detection. But that has been cracked. I'm done there is no point to this. There are just as many reasons to bash Windows as there are for Macs. But I do find Windows users are less open to admitting that.

I'm exclusively a Windows user, but every time I use my friend's macs, I'm amazed at the ease of use, the simplicity of design (think no massive fans), and the shockingly good and free software that comes with macs. My wife is so impressed that she's buying a mac laptop. My other friends were so impressed, they bought (used) imacs for everyone in the family -- two adults and two children. My next computer may be a mac, but I'd have to dual boot, as I have some software that's windows only.

As for the original topic, does this program support toe in of speakers? I have two sets of speakers (in my home theater, anyway), that I'm currently testing. One is around maybe four foot high, three drivers, three way, one is around six feet high, 9 drivers (1 tweeter, 4 mid panels, 1 midbass, 1 bass), and I tend to toe these in.

what program can i use to open this? when i click on the textures box it asks for me to insert my microsoft picture it 2002 disk.i don't even have this disk anymore,so is there anything else i can use to install this thanks for any help.

Where are the mods when you need them? It's COMPLETELY absurd we are discussing Mac vs. PC in this forum. Can't people grow up and respect the topic of this thread? It's highly disrespectful to the author of the software to derail the thread with such childish posts that have absolutely NO bearing on the software.

Hi all,

I'm new to this so I just wanted to verify that I used this program correctly to get the reflections that would be created from my speakers.

http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/1179/theaterreflections1cr6.th.jpg (http://img175.imageshack.us/my.php?image=theaterreflections1cr6.jpg)


[img=http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/1179/theaterreflections1cr6.th.jpg] (http://img175.imageshack.us/my.php?image=theaterreflections1cr6.jpg)


I wasn't completely sure how to set up the listening position, but I think it's correct. From what I can tell I'd need maybe two acoutic panels on both the left and right walls and then an acoustic panel above the listening position on the ceiling? Thanks for the input or advice.

Great job creating this program.

Hopefully the creator of this program will get the next version out soon....count me in as another user with an offset room (door in the front wall). Also, being able to "switch off" a second row is important for those of us without second rows!

One other item of note, I would like it if there was more flexibility and consistency in the dimensions.....some of them only go by 2" increments....but then vary. ie, measurements will go 1'0", 1'2", 1'5", 1'7", 1'10", 2'0" etc.

Thanks Great Program

this program is stunning!

A+

thank you

GREAT prog. but what about my 4 rear speakers?? and how do i print my screen or take a screen shot of my findings??:confused:

First reflections just aren't a concern for the surround channels like they are for the main channels.

If you want to print, you can rotate around until you have a pretty oblique (straight-on) view of the side wall, ceiling, etc. and just take a screen capture (print screen). From there, paste it into whatever image editor (even Paint if you don't have anything better).

If you want to get really fancy, you can even use the process I've described where you can actually get the image from FRV and put it in SketchUp to scale (measure) reflection zones and test different sizes and shapes of absorption panels over the image.

It would be super-cool if Chris added a feature to just save each rendered wall surface (with reflections) out to a TIFF or BMP or whatever to print and scale or use however you like.

Regardless, it's a very cool app - just as it is - and it worked perfectly for me while I built my room.

SC

Requirements:

Windows XP SP2
DirectX 9.0c


I don't have Vista, but as far as I know it won't work, because MS has no plans
for backwards compatibility between DirectX 10 and DirectX 9.0c. Older versions
of DirectX will not work either.

I have done my utmost to make sure this program functions correctly, including testing on several machines, virus-scanning the archive before posting it, etc. I don't expect any problems, but please keep in mind that you use the tool at your own discretion.

Feel free to email me with any bugs, suggestions, or requests. My email
is in the title bar of the application (see the screenshot). :)

At the suggestion of a forum member, i've added a paypal email for donations.
If you feel the tool has helped you out and you'd like to support further development, you can paypal any amount to smith@kulkarnicorp.com. Thanks

It ran on my Vista Home Premium with Intel duo 2 core 6750 running at 3.2 GHZ with 2 Gb ram GTS8600 GPC, Raptor HDD, in the versin you now have on the thread.:cool:

This is a really neat app. Would be cool to develop further into a home theatre design tool so you can picture how things will look in a planned theatre.

1) I can't set my front tower speakers on the floor. They won't go any lower than your 4" limit off the ground! I can't use this like that, so I shrink my speakers 4" as a compromise.

2) My speakers are toed in quite a few degrees. Any plans to accommodate toe angle?

3) The screen doesn't look like it can go flush with the ceiling. That's how it must be in my setup. Not key for first reflections actually, and probably has nothing to do with it, but I just wanted to see how it looked in here :)

4) Any plans for surround/rear speakers?

This is a really neat app. Would be cool to develop further into a home theatre design tool so you can picture how things will look in a planned theatre.

1) I can't set my front tower speakers on the floor. They won't go any lower than your 4" limit off the ground! I can't use this like that, so I shrink my speakers 4" as a compromise.

2) My speakers are toed in quite a few degrees. Any plans to accommodate toe angle?

3) The screen doesn't look like it can go flush with the ceiling. That's how it must be in my setup. Not key for first reflections actually, and probably has nothing to do with it, but I just wanted to see how it looked in here :)

4) Any plans for surround/rear speakers?

I am only a reader here, but some of your questions were answered earlier in the thread

1) distance is to middle of speaker

2) sound field generated by speaker is usally large enough where toe-in will not matter in calculation. Jeffrey gives an example as to why in a earlier post.

3) screen is transparent

4) Jeffrey's research shows that reflections from rears are not an issue. See earlier posts.

I am only a reader here, but some of your questions were answered earlier in the thread

1) distance is to middle of speaker

2) sound field generated by speaker is usally large enough where toe-in will not matter in calculation. Jeffrey gives an example as to why in a earlier post.

3) screen is transparent

4) Jeffrey's research shows that reflections from rears are not an issue. See earlier posts.

Ok, fair enough, but how can it be the distance to the middle of the speaker when my speakers are 39" tall and the thing bottoms out at 4"?

If your speakers are 39" tall the mounting height is 1/2 of 39 or 19.5" therefore the bottom of 4" is irrelevant:) With that mounting and the size of the speaker input, the software should see the speaker as if it was standing on the floor. Although I see in the graphic that the speaker is still floating above the floor.

For the moment I am going by Jeffrey's statement that the height is to center of speaker and that the software would then calculate the reflections for your setup as though the speakers were sitting on the floor.

Maybe I misunderstood him earlier.

Since I do Mechanical Engineering with Autocad and numerous calculation software I have seen over the years that what ever is shown graphically may not reflect what the calculation is actually doing.

Hi everyone,

Great app, I ran it on vista premiun works great!

I just wanted to ask a few questions:

**if my speakers are divided like half the size (bottom) is only the wooden box and the top half has the actual drivers...
should i measure the whole wood box or just the part that has the drivers in ?

**is it possible to "toe in" the speakers ?

**why can't I see the reflections behind the speakers?
i've read some material on the web, that says acoustic treatment should be made at the sides of the room and behind the speakers
first, because these are the most problematic areas.

thanks,
tomer.

THis is a great program...Installed it ran it. LOVE it.


Now more importantly what does it mean :D

How can I tell the distance of my reflection points so that I can place my sound absortion boards in the correct positions?

Also is there away to cut and paste the picture....is there a "save as" feature? I guess I can use Snap IT and just screen capture the pic and post on my build thread.

Again, Awesome piece of software. Where do I send a donation?

When you measure:

offset of side speakers from side wall -- where do you measure to on the speaker (the mid point of the speaker -- or the closest part of the speaker to that wall)?

height of side speakers off floor: do you measure to bottom of speaker; or top; or in the middle?

when you measure off-set of speaker from front wall: do you measure to the front of the speaker; to the back of the speaker or the middle?

What exactly is the width, height and depth of a listening position? I have no idea what measurements are being asked for here.

I have 3 chairs in my front row. The chairs are a total of 10 feet wide. But what about the "height of the listening position" and how does that differ from the "height off the ground"? And what is the depth?

Can someone explain EXACTLY what is being asked for here in the listening positions? It is not clear.

Also, iIs there any way to make fine adjustments on the sliders. When I need to go only one inch, I can't get it to do that.

When you measure:

offset of side speakers from side wall -- where do you measure to on the speaker (the mid point of the speaker -- or the closest part of the speaker to that wall)?

height of side speakers off floor: do you measure to bottom of speaker; or top; or in the middle?

when you measure off-set of speaker from front wall: do you measure to the front of the speaker; to the back of the speaker or the middle?

What exactly is the width, height and depth of a listening position? I have no idea what measurements are being asked for here.

I have 3 chairs in my front row. The chairs are a total of 10 feet wide. But what about the "height of the listening position" and how does that differ from the "height off the ground"? And what is the depth?

Can someone explain EXACTLY what is being asked for here in the listening positions? It is not clear.

Also, iIs there any way to make fine adjustments on the sliders. When I need to go only one inch, I can't get it to do that.

Bump. Anyone?

This software no longer seems to be listed on the page referenced in the first post. Did I just miss it or is it available somewhere else?

Thanks
Ray

Bump for software as well

another bump!

bump!

bump!

Is the software still available?

I'm having trouble with the links in the original post.

Another bump for the software if still available.

Thanks

Hmm. It doesn't seem to be available. Is there a way somebody can send me that file or someone can host it please?

Thanks! I could really use that program! It looks amazing.

I'm with the fellow bumpers on this post. I'd like to take a look at it and have been watching the posts for a while. I wish I had downloaded it earlier, but I'm ready now to really start checking out my speaker layout and don't have the software!

Does this work on your PCs?

Does this work on your PCs?

That looks like it works for me. The program runs (after I downloaded the DX9 patch thing), but I haven't tried calculating reflection points yet. If I got that far, I'm sure the reflection points calculation will work. I'll verify tonight. Thanks!

Edit: It works great!

Does this work on your PCs?

Thanks reaper - I'll take a look at it tonight. Hopefully I can get it going.

BOTH MACHINES HAVE BIG PROBLEMS!!!
The OS BY ITSELF

OOPS...
As I was saying.... works.
When the user starts adding crappy software that has not been debugged (read... software vendor releases to general public to debug FOR THEM), the OS/machine WILL have problems.
I worked for Dreamworks Animation for 6 months and they were running photoshop on G5's. An animator would walk away from his station and when he came back the machine would be locked up... NOTHING HAD HAPPENED IN BETWEEN!!!
Consequently, my PC's at home (4 online weather stations, 2 doing SETI calculations) will lockup occasionally as well.
Bottom line... I grew up a PC person, and desire to stay, but If I started with Apples, I would probably stay apple as well...
Personal preference and familiarity!!!
GET OVER YOURSELVES!!! ;)

Is there a way to zoom into the room so the grids used for measurement can actually be "measured". I know the program is not the be-all of reflection point calculation software, but I think its great and a zoom would be wonderful (unless of course its always been there and Im doing something wrong?)

EDIT: Move along people, Im an idiot!!!!

Do any of the users have answers to these questions. I am assuming that you measure everything from the middle of the speaker. Good assumption? I also don't understand the the difference between hight off the ground and height of listening position. Would appreciate any help.

Generally a great program. I hope that Jeffery found that great job and will eventually return to this thread. In the meantime help from anybody else would be appreciated.

When you measure:

offset of side speakers from side wall -- where do you measure to on the speaker (the mid point of the speaker -- or the closest part of the speaker to that wall)?

height of side speakers off floor: do you measure to bottom of speaker; or top; or in the middle?

when you measure off-set of speaker from front wall: do you measure to the front of the speaker; to the back of the speaker or the middle?

What exactly is the width, height and depth of a listening position? I have no idea what measurements are being asked for here.

I have 3 chairs in my front row. The chairs are a total of 10 feet wide. But what about the "height of the listening position" and how does that differ from the "height off the ground"? And what is the depth?

Can someone explain EXACTLY what is being asked for here in the listening positions? It is not clear.

Also, iIs there any way to make fine adjustments on the sliders. When I need to go only one inch, I can't get it to do that.

Won't work for me. My room is 26 X 21 but the theater is only in a 13 X 21 portion of it. This assumes everything is centered. I need to move everything over and have a big empty space to the left. :( Oh well.

Thank you very much for your hard work on the application. It worked like a charm.

It's pure magic. :)

Jeff,

Nice software!

I can't save or load rooms without it crashing, but it otherwise works.

It would be cool to add a toe angle to the front L/R speakers.

Thanks,
Dave

Wow. Nice program. http://i487.photobucket.com/albums/rr233/rapidart/ee039410.jpg

Too bad I only have 1 listening position.

How about the next version with larger secren sizes currently my plan is for 16ft. wide screen 2.35:1..nice tool :cool:

hmmm, says wrong url. Can't DL ideas?

Hmmm,still error with the link to the program...
This programme seems really intresting :rolleyes:

Did you see the .zip I posted on the previous page?

try this link to Name: Chris Smith website http://www.oynag.com/chris/graphics.html#frp

First Reflection Points

* Language: C/C++
* Graphics API: DirectX 9.0c
* Download Link: Download Here (Requires DirectX 9.0c and XP)

This tool was originally written to aid some friends in the design of their home theatre. The idea is to locate areas of wall/ceiling where sound from the front speakers can bounce and reach the listener's ears. These "first reflections" arrive at the ear slightly after direct sound from the speaker, since they travel a slightly longer path through the room. They result in a smearing or muddying effect on the sound. Special acoustic dampening material can be placed on the walls/ceiling at these locations to absorb the sound and prevent it from reaching your ears. I released this tool to the home theatre community on www.avsforum.com. It has been downloaded approximately 1000 times as of June 2007.

The GUI elements were written from scratch using some of the nice new functionality in D3DXSPRITE. The reflections are solved using my voxel accelerated raytracer described below.

In the screenshot above, the splotches of color on the walls correspond to these first reflection zones, color-coded by speaker, and each should be treated with acoustic dampening material.



edit: I agree, broken link, I have the software but since I did not write it or have permission from the author I can't zip it to you, sorry, I respect the IP of the author.

Huh? I downloaded the .rar from that web page you just posted... no problem.

Huh? I downloaded the .rar from that web page you just posted... no problem.

My work must have a firewall up for that, anyway glad it's still downloadable to the avs community.
All I get is a 172k file that does not load anything, not like my prior app

is it in, cm ore inches?
have you made one who works with Mac?
(mac freak:D)

Too bad this doesn't work any more.

Tried to run the DirectX patch, no luck.

Should have been written for the Mac. That way it would actually work.

I'm not sure Mac people should be throwing stones about backwards compatibility. Aside from that holy war, this seems to work fine for me. I'm running Vista x64.

I got it to work by right clicking on first102.exe, going to the compatability tab and choosing windows2000. Now it loads up fine for some reason. Wish the author didnt fall off the map :D.

I'm running XP sp3.

URL to download is dead... anyone have a mirror or have the file and I'll host a mirror?

It's a couple posts back attached to a thread.

I can post the updated version of it soon if people still want it...

Sure. What version number is it?

Does anybody have any idea what happened to the OP/developer? The software lists the author as "chris.smith@pcrx.ca"... Google turns nothing up, but the site was down after mid-'08. His profile says his last activity was 10-09-07 09:09 AM. FRV is an awesome tool and I wish the developer was still around. I hope nothing happened to him.

I believe v1.02 was the last/latest.

Cheers,
SC

he's my brother, and got very very busy with a new job. But he built me an updated version of the tool for me new theatre build...

Excellent. He does good work!

he's my brother, and got very very busy with a new job. But he built me an updated version of the tool for me new theatre build...

Can you ask your brother for permission to post the updated version? Or if he has time to post an working version the community would greatly appreciate the support.

Thanks.....

For anyone running W7, or Vista probably, compatibility mode didn't work for me with the missing directx files, but doing the directx web update from microsoft did

Link (http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=2DA43D38-DB71-4C1B-BC6A-9B6652CD92A3&displaylang=en)

works for me in Vista 32bit home edition. no problems.

up..........
thanks a lot.

No udate for that software ?

I want to try it but do not know where to download...

Please help !

Thanks,

JP

Hello,

Is there an update on that thread ?

I want to try it but do not know where to download the latest version.

Thanks,

JP

Hello,

Is there an update on that thread ?

I want to try it but do not know where to download the latest version.

Thanks,

JP

Just read up a few posts....there is a link to the .rar, and further down a link to dirrectx configurator.

Hi Timmy. We've already had the discussion about rotating speakers and the fact is rotation doesn't make much of a difference when it comes to reflection points since the app casts such a wide cone off each speaker anyway.

Re small group or wide group...if you mean listener zones, the smaller the better. The smaller you make the green boxes, the less sound will reflect off the walls and hit them, resulting in smaller clusters of points, so you get to make less panels!

As for the past few posts about feature requests, I will consider all of them for future releases, but for the next version, which will be 1.1, I have now locked in the features that will be available. They include:

1. Cathedral Ceilings
2. Ability to setup speakers off-center in the room x-axis
3. Ability to setup listener zones off-center in the room x-axis
4. Ability to selectively disable listener zones
5. GUI redesigned to support these features
6. Sound now passes through listeners to back wall and reflects, resulting in
more reflections shown on back wall. Before I was assuming the green boxes intercepted all sound fired at them, which won't strictly be the case unless you're a family of fatheads. :)

behind the scenes improvements:
Raytracer now 2x faster than v1.02. Default scene on my machine is < 5 seconds. Can't make it much faster.
GUI drawing code is 3x faster
CPU utilization down 15% on my machine

I'm not sure when this release will be since I will be away most of the next month, and I am only about 1/2 done the modifications, but i'll do what I can.

Is it safe to assume a newer version was never released? The zip I downloaded contained version 1.02 but has none of the features listed by the author. Any word on the status of this software?

No I have not posted it yet. I'm waiting for the go-ahead from the author...

No I have not posted it yet. I'm waiting for the go-ahead from the author...

bump...

Progress on the new release? Pretty please?

Progress on the new release? Pretty please?

John - Mirror trick not good enough for you now, eh??

Yea - having all those updates would be cool, even though I'm "done" my brother and brother in-law could use the new release....

John - Mirror trick not good enough for you now, eh??

Yea - having all those updates would be cool, even though I'm "done" my brother and brother in-law could use the new release....

Haha, good one Mike.

I don't know about the mirror trick not being enough, I've got all the points either already absorbed or marked with painter's tape anyway. But I'm suggesting it to others so it'd be nice to have an up to date version. I like it if for no other reason than it reminds people that they need to consider the ceiling and floor! Although now that I think of it, it's not showing front wall points either, much less rear wall. But it's the only tool I've ever seen that is meant for a large seating area rather than a one-position situation such as an audio control room.