This is about the new ARCX Community Beta release.
After downloading ARCX, it is asking me to release one of the two seats I have on my ARC Pro subscription. I use both seats to run and develop my robot, so constantly releasing and switching seats is inconvenient and disruptive. (For example, I typically use one seat on my development PC and the other on the robot’s PC or controller.)
In my opinion, there should be a third license seat provided for free during the ARCX beta period while we help test and wait for skills to be added over time. Please let me know your thoughts.
Other than that, what I’ve seen so far is exciting - ARCX looks clean and well thought out. I can’t do much with it on my current robot yet, but I’m keeping an eye on newly added Robot Skills.
One other question: Will we someday be able to merge or port scripts, Robot Skills (for example AutoPosition), and other assets like sound clips from ARC to ARCX the way we can currently copy between two ARC projects? I have hundreds of scripts, skills, and sound files in my ARC Pro projects and would like to know how migration between ARC and ARCX will be handled.
Hi Dave. Great question. I have the same issue in regard to sound files (as you know). I've tested a couple of scripts (copy/pasted) and was able to transfer and they ran without issue. But we need to be able to name sound boards and script collections like they are in ARC or we will have to go in and modify many scripts. Watching you post for answers.
Hi dbeard, Yep, I can see how porting big projects like ours over to Arcx will be an issue across all of our scripts. Hopefully the Brainiacs at Synthiam will have a solution. I have some important scripts buried deep inside the multiple AP skills I use.
Thanks for your feedback, Dave - it's always valuable to hear from users as we move forward.
ARC is not being deprecated or removed. The ARC user base is far too extensive to remove the product. In fact, we have continued to create new ARC features and products since the release of ARCx to demonstrate our commitment to continued ARC support.
ARCx is an entirely new rewrite - and the similarities between ARC and ARCx are purely abstract. We refactored all legacy code as we migrated away from the previous platform's framework. While ARCx looks new and appealing, it may not be a good fit for some users. For example, there is no way to migrate projects from ARC to ARCx. While some code may work (and most will), we cannot guarantee that all code will.
But, before there's any panic thinking you will miss out on the features of ARCx - know that both products are continued to exist, which gives you plenty of time to migrate, if you choose to do so. There is no rush to jump on board the latest, newest, and shiniest thing. I'm not trying to deter anyone from using ARCx - I think it's important that we identify where the benefits lie, and what may not be as important.
For example, ARCx's primary outcome was cross-platform for Linux, macOS, Raspberry Pi, and Windows. In addition, the Custom UI Builder is designed for users who wish to create mobile-type apps, kiosks, and other custom user interfaces. There are many other features to mention, but those are the two primary advantages. If neither of those applies to your project, it may be worth sticking with ARC.
I agree with Dave. A third seat for Licensing of ARCX makes sense to me. Its kinda in beta and not a complete product yet. I don't want to use one of my 2 seats as a Pro user for ARCX. My set up is office and workshop and the unlinking licensing seats is a pain if you are going to be going back and forth a lot between testing ARCX and using ARC (original recipe? lol) in a day. Maybe there is another solution but I can't think of anything.
@synthiam ..thanks!