Why Lighting Control Is Still Built Like It’s 1995

Lighting technology has changed dramatically over the last few decades. Fixtures are brighter, cheaper, and more capable than ever. Networks are faster. Software is more powerful. Yet if you look closely at how lighting is actually controlled, much of the core thinking still resembles systems designed in the mid-1990s.

This isn’t a criticism of the people building or using these systems. It’s a reflection of how certain design assumptions became deeply embedded and were never seriously challenged.

DMX solved a 1990s problem extremely well

When DMX512 emerged, it was a practical solution to a very real problem: how to control multiple lighting fixtures reliably using simple hardware.

Its design made sense for the time:

• One-way communication

• Fixed channels with numeric values

• No dependency on computers or networks

• Simple, deterministic timing

For touring rigs and theater environments of the era, this was exactly what was needed. DMX succeeded because it was predictable and robust, not because it was flexible or expressive.

That success is also why its mental model still dominates today.

Channels instead of intent

Most lighting systems still think in channels.

Intensity is channel 1.

Red is channel 2.

Pan is channel 5.

This model assumes that the operator will manually translate creative intent into low-level control values. Want a calm look? That becomes dozens of channel adjustments. Want tension? That becomes faster movements and sharper transitions.

Modern software may wrap this in nicer interfaces, but the underlying abstraction rarely changes. The system still doesn’t understand what the operator is trying to achieve. It only knows which numbers to send.

This is one of the biggest reasons lighting control has been slow to evolve. Channels are a delivery mechanism, not a language.

Stateless systems in a stateful world

DMX has no concept of state.

It does not know what a fixture was doing before.

It does not know what should happen next.

It does not know if a command was received or executed correctly.

As a result, lighting control systems rely heavily on continuous repetition. Values are sent over and over again, hoping everything stays in sync. If something drifts or fails, the system has no native way to detect or correct it.

This made sense when fixtures were simple and isolated. It makes far less sense in modern, networked environments where context and continuity matter.

No feedback, no verification

In most DMX-based systems, there is no confirmation that a fixture is actually doing what it was told to do. The controller assumes success.

This has several consequences:

• Errors are silent

• Diagnostics are manual

• Safety relies on human oversight

• Automation is risky

Without feedback, higher-level logic becomes guesswork. Any system attempting autonomy or intelligence is forced to infer behavior instead of knowing it.

That limitation alone explains why many “smart” lighting features feel fragile or unreliable.

Human-driven timing everywhere

Lighting control still assumes that humans are responsible for timing decisions. Operators press buttons, move faders, and trigger cues.

Even when software assists with playback, timing is usually hard-coded in advance. Adaptation during a live show is limited and often manual.

This is not because automation is impossible. It’s because the control model was never designed to support it safely. When timing errors are visible to an audience, systems default to human intervention.

Backward compatibility as a design constraint

One of the biggest reasons lighting control still looks like it did decades ago is compatibility.

DMX equipment lasts a long time. Venues and rental houses expect new systems to work with old fixtures. Breaking compatibility is expensive and risky.

As a result, innovation tends to happen around DMX rather than through it:

• Faster transport

• Networked distribution

• Better user interfaces

The core control model stays the same.

Innovation has focused on scale, not structure

The industry has invested heavily in scaling lighting systems:

• More universes

• Larger networks

• More fixtures

• More parameters

What it has invested less in is changing how those systems think.

Scaling a system does not automatically make it smarter. In many cases, it simply makes the same old assumptions harder to manage.

Why this still matters

These design choices limit what lighting systems can realistically do:

• Automation remains brittle

• Intelligence remains reactive

• Operators remain overloaded during complex shows

• Innovation becomes incremental instead of transformative

This doesn’t mean DMX is obsolete. It means the ecosystem built around it has outgrown the assumptions it was based on.

What change actually looks like

Real progress in lighting control is unlikely to come from adding more channels or faster networks alone.

It will come from systems that:

• understand intent instead of raw values

• maintain explicit state

• provide feedback and verification

• separate decision-making from transport

• support automation without sacrificing predictability

These are architectural changes, not feature additions.

Looking forward

Lighting control is not stuck in the past because the industry lacks creativity or skill. It is stuck because the foundational model worked so well for so long that it became invisible.

As shows become more dynamic, immersive, and software-driven, those foundations are starting to show their limits.

The next wave of innovation will not be about doing the same things faster. It will be about rethinking what lighting systems are allowed to understand, decide, and control.

And that starts by acknowledging that many of today’s assumptions were shaped by a very different era.