Yes, I know what you mean, it is the same objection some people moved to me just the very first days when I presented LittleOne version 1.0.chk071 wrote:Ok, but don't you think, due to the non-existing limitation on software to not have to worry about costs when implementing hardware like knobs, it should be different, and on the GUI, there should be separate controls for cutoff and resonance? Not everyone has a midi keyboard which has knobs, or even uses a midi keyboard. It's really nice to have the controls on the GUI, and have them separated, instead of having to click a switch to switch the knob between cutoff and resonance mode. With all due respect to realism, and mimicing the hardware, that thing is a no-go on the hardware, and it's a big no-go in software. Controls on a soft synth ARE there to operate them with your mouse.
I can understand when people say "hey, virtual knobs don't cost money, why didn't you put them all on the panel?".
So, why keeping/mimic the original hardware also in this aspect?
The first thing I can say for sure (and all users agree with this,after they spent some time with LittleOne) is that the user experience is not slowed in any way. If you want to move knobs with your mouse, well, simply you can move them just one at time, in any case. You can have a virtual instrument with 100s of knobs, but you can edit, drag, twist only one knob at time.
If you want to design a preset directly from the gui and your mouse, there will be no wastes of time at all. If you use to edit/record parameters in real time during a performance (a practice that is allowed only using a minority of hosts like FLStudio for example), again - you can edit once at time.
Another reason : LittleOne's modulation engine/controls reside on the main panel and (as in the original hardware) ALSO IN THE OPERATING SYSTEM PAGES. So, if I choose to make all controls 'explicit' (= put on the main panel ALL the knobs, ALL the modulation switches, sources, destinations etc...) the GUI would be much more confusing
I think keeping the original design has a definitely minimum (or zero) impact on usage, and this keeps things coherent and 'good looking' in the gui, and...
...and let me say that : incredibly VINTAGE AND FUN !
for the ones who know what I refer
: Who remembers the old days spent to program a HW synth like the Korg workstations (e.g.: Wavestation, Trinity, etc...) or some mid-80s analogue synths like the Roland JX-series, the Korg Poly-800, etc... or the Little Phatty itself Surfing all the OS pages, finding the hidden parameters... So many memories...So I think the original design wins because, as I stated above, it has really minimum or zero impact on 'everyday usage' and keeps things 'clear, fine designed and vintage'.
Also: it would be simpler for me to use the "all knobs, together, here and now" gui approach, but I preferred to keep the original approach. By the way, maybe I'll add a second gui layout. The first is the original, the second is for people who want 'everything and suddenly'
Just kidding, but I'm serious with this possibility. Just let me know what you think people !By the way, the wide majority of Users do use a MIDI master keyboard and controls, so for them there's no problem at all, they can accede all parameters separately and at the same time.
Well, it's your synth, and your vision. 
