That's a valid decision if you don't like the software. That's what competitors are for, offering different things.

Just don't think that they will implement a feature just because you decided it, though. On-demand software costs a big lot more than a little license.

I changed it because your default is ugly and you don't even seem to care. And who need "Ins" that can't be read anyway on top of all the mixer strips? That's badly done as is most of your gui work.

You seem to have this idea that you can somehow restrict the use of your program. What's next, you're going to start telling users what kind of music they can make with FL? Your arrogance is stunning. Why ImageLine even lets you near the internet is beyond me.

I never "demanded' anything I made a simple feature request as users are prone to do. Your updates are free so do what you will but don't for one second think that you know what's best for me or any other user. You might want to open your mind and shut your mouth.

But you're free to hack skins for your personal use, we don't care but don't ask us to give support for them.
We give tech support for a proper use of the app. Altering system bitmaps & scripts isn't proper use.
(& just imagine how many cracked versions we'd have to support)




Yes, and that doesn't mean we have to implement them. You don't accept being answered no, so moving to another, skinnable app is what I'd do too - no problem with that.
Just don't say it's arrogance if an app doesn't change according to your requests.

Who's asking for support? If I had a problem that I thought was related to the GUI I would first switch back to the default and see what happened. Changing a few pixels here and there is hardly "hacking". So you're saying that if you allowed full skinning that would somehow cause you to support cracked versions? You couldn't recognize your own program if it just had a different skin? I don't think anyone is asking for "full" skinning support where you can actually change the layout of elements in other words make a mixer that can be read easily. We just want to customize the look so it pleases our eyes and can be viewed for the long hours we're supposedly using your program.
Last edited by Teksonik on Wed Jan 07, 2009 6:08 am; edited 1 time in total

What is arrogance is you seem to think you know what's best for each user better than they do themselves. You're programming FL for you not the users who paid for the app to begin with. If you think that's the way to do business then more power to you.

I'm not seeing a crowd behind you supporting the need for bright cyan colors in the mixer.
On the contrary I WAS asked to offer well-behaving color presets.

Besides, one just has to visit our forum to see thousands of people having really different & conflicting requests. You can't please everyone. In fact, I think that something that suits everyone, suits no one in reality.

I think you problem is that you're not replied a corporate "we acknowledged your request and blah blah bs" answer like you'd get from some companies.
But wake me up when one of those companies you got such answers from, ended up implementing your request.

There are also new/small devs from who you will get happy & motivated answers (while it still lasts), maybe that should be your choice too.

No, there is no way to please everybody. For everyone making a feature request there are people who will be dead set against that feature. You can try to please the most uers but you'll never please all.

Where did I ask for bright Cyan? The point is that no matter how much you and I hate the color there is probably someone out there who loves that color and would use it in every project. Why shouldn't they be able to choose that color and still have the Mixer Labels readable and not washed out? Just give us the ability to choose the Font Color like we can change the background color and problem solved. Doesn't seem that complicated a request and no it's not a demand.

I can make a feature request and if it doesn't make it into FL 9 perhaps in 10 or 11 but I'll still want that feature. If I'm the only one who wants that feature then it doesn't make any sense to spend time adding it but if lots of users want it then it might be worth adding. Something tells me that in the time you've taken to post in this thread you could have added custom Font Colors to FL 9 and been done with the issue.

Now that I think about it GUI issues are the only thing I would want changed in FL. There's nothing in the workflow I would change except adding Orion's pattern in place method but that would mean a full re-write and no one expects that. So the fact that the only thing I could find wrong in my eyes with FL is the lack of custom color options speaks a lot about how good the program is overall. So you see why I'm spending time asking for this feature since it's really the only reasonable thing I would want out of FL at this time. It's something that could be added without taking away any current features. If someone doesn't want to choose custom colors for Piano Roll notes then don't. If for example you changed the Mixer Size you get lot's of people mad becuase it changed the workflow of FL. That I can understand but adding something that doesn't change any current feature and allows the user to completely ignore it doesn't seem unreasonable.
Last edited by Teksonik on Wed Jan 07, 2009 6:35 am; edited 1 time in total

in my experience of devs, if one person asks for some silly adition he gets it, if 30 ppl ask for a change, it gets ignored...

Why it that? Well if that's true then let's hope I'm the only one asking for this silly addition.

But lots of users have asked for full skinning. I've seen lots of users ask for full skinning. I have asked for full skinning.

The GUI of a program is what gives someone their first impressions. At the moment, the impression of FL is a gloomy, ugly, dark, grey, boxy DAW.

Firefox is a program that supports skinning. Users can fully skin the program and send those skins to Mozilla. Mozilla can then feature the best skins in the add-ons section for users to download and use. These skins are generally well done and tasteful. Supporting full skinning does not hamper the image of Firefox or Mozilla. It boosts the image. It's what attracted me to Firefox.
So how about doing something similar with FL? Users send you skins and you judge whether they are good enough to feature on the website. This way the good ones will be easily available to the large audience of people looking for FL skins, and less people will be searching other websites for skins and finding terrible ones. Who would not benefit from this? You could even charge for the skins.

I really would like to know what it is about skinning FL that you are so opposed to.


*EDIT*: Would it be possible to implement hiding certain toolbars into FL9? There are 3 toolbars that have to be displayed that I never use. These toolbars stop me fitting all the toolbars on two lines, which makes FL hard to use. Just throwing it out there.

gol, first off let me say I appreciate almost all the work flow features with FL Studio.

I really can't point out big flaws in the work flow for me whatsoever, and the IL team definitely deserves props for their work on that.

But I am definitely with Barnezy on this topic of skinning.

Now personally for me, it's not life or death for me to have a meter a different color, or a knob all fancy, but every once in awhile it can be a very nice change of pace to see a different interface.

Sometimes, for me, it can bring a whole different energy and vibe to the musical process.

Tech. support would still prompt users to switch back to the Default skin for support if they needed help on something, to make things less complicated there.

I see other programs like WinAmp &, as Barnezy mentioned, Firefox that support full skinning a.k.a. themes. Yes there may be some horrible themes in your eyes for those programs, and I've seen my fair share of ugly skins, but your trash may be another persons treasure.

The only solution I see here really is to stop the accusations any possibly try to meet in the middle somewhere. I've always respected Image-Line for their less serious attitude about things, so I see no reason why skinning seems to be the taboo word to speak about the program.

I personally have seen some skins that I love for FL, and I've seen some that were downright ugly and unusable.

To have a developer this hands on and actually discussing this in this thread, although it may have gone the wrong route, is still a breathe of fresh air. You know he doesn't have to browse these forums like this..

I do back skinning, but I also believe there should be some restraints on it.

Opening skinning publicly would increase the number of skins being produced, but along with that the quality might also decrease, which seems to be the object of fear here.

Maybe closed skinning would be the answer? *or progress towards an answer*

Image-Line could handpick people they think would be fit for skinning the program, or they could hold a contest of some kind however the company would see fit, and they could skin it closed source. All of the .bmp files could be hidden inside the coding, and skins would be made by only select people that have the access to do so, at Image-Line's discretion.

Now, I have no idea how ANY coding works, so maybe that is completely impossible. I just know some .bmp's are not in the Artwork folder, so they must be in the programs coding somewhere.

Now once again, I express my appreciation for gol even taking the time to talk with the customers like this, even if it doesn't turn out how I would like.

Skinning is not a necessity, but it is an optional add-on that I would most definitely appreciate.

Those are just my thoughts on this situation, so hopefully this thread will calm down and we can come to a common ground with the developers, or at least hold a stable exchange of words.

A second official skin is even more work to support, because while we can release a new version and get away with third-party skins being uncompatible, if it's our official skin we have to update it as well.

It's a big advantage to do the program and the skin alone, other programmers have to ask & wait for new bitmaps in order to test stuff.

& lots of users have said they'd prefer time spent on other features than skinning. Afterall it's not a media player.




btw to Barnezy: you can hide toolbars

Darn.... My popcorn runout...

Back tomorrow