FilterscapeVA improvement poll
- u-he
- Topic Starter
- 28067 posts since 8 Aug, 2002 from Berlin
Dear Filterscape Users,
as you might know, I'm currently deep in the process of finishing Filterscape V1.1 (which will also be the final Win version). This - free - update will also include a couple of improvements, mostly derived from feature requests the and experience of 5 months.
Now... a major problem of FilterscapeVA has always been, that the filter parameters are at the end of a long list, and that some hosts such as Live 4 do not let you automate them. So, what I would like to do to improve FilterscapeVA is, I want to take out the parameters of the Arpeggiator Step Control from the list of automatable parameters. This would make the list muuuuch shorter, it would make the Filter parameters accessible for automation and it would give me some space for a couple of planned additions.
But: Changing the list of parameters is equivalent to creating an incompatibility to existing automation data. Hence, if you have already created automation tracks for FilterscapeVA in your songs, you would have to re-assign these tracks to the new parameter structure. Or - for instance if you have automated any Arpeggiator Step Control values - the automation tracks would get lost.
I think it would be consequent to do the proposed change, because you would also get some new stuff that's not yet in, and I can't imagine that automating the Arp Step Control is something very useful at all...
However, I'll let you decide...
Thanks,
Urs
P.S.: Legit Filterscape users only, please!
as you might know, I'm currently deep in the process of finishing Filterscape V1.1 (which will also be the final Win version). This - free - update will also include a couple of improvements, mostly derived from feature requests the and experience of 5 months.
Now... a major problem of FilterscapeVA has always been, that the filter parameters are at the end of a long list, and that some hosts such as Live 4 do not let you automate them. So, what I would like to do to improve FilterscapeVA is, I want to take out the parameters of the Arpeggiator Step Control from the list of automatable parameters. This would make the list muuuuch shorter, it would make the Filter parameters accessible for automation and it would give me some space for a couple of planned additions.
But: Changing the list of parameters is equivalent to creating an incompatibility to existing automation data. Hence, if you have already created automation tracks for FilterscapeVA in your songs, you would have to re-assign these tracks to the new parameter structure. Or - for instance if you have automated any Arpeggiator Step Control values - the automation tracks would get lost.
I think it would be consequent to do the proposed change, because you would also get some new stuff that's not yet in, and I can't imagine that automating the Arp Step Control is something very useful at all...
However, I'll let you decide...
Thanks,
Urs
P.S.: Legit Filterscape users only, please!
Last edited by Urs on Thu Jun 02, 2005 1:41 pm, edited 2 times in total.
-
- KVRAF
- 13090 posts since 14 Nov, 2000 from Hannover / Germany
OK, probably the easiest way to get both parties happy would be to simply leave 1.0 as is and have 1.1 as a separate install.
That way you'd be able to load your old projects just the way they were.
In case you don't have much automation going on, you could just save the setting in 1.0 and then load 1.1 and the appropriate preset.
Wouldn't that be the best solution?
That way you'd be able to load your old projects just the way they were.
In case you don't have much automation going on, you could just save the setting in 1.0 and then load 1.1 and the appropriate preset.
Wouldn't that be the best solution?
There are 3 kinds of people:
Those who can do maths and those who can't.
Those who can do maths and those who can't.
-
- KVRist
- 354 posts since 13 Jul, 2003 from Berlin
Exactly what I thought... but Sascha seems to be faster always...
Cheers
Hans
Cheers
Hans
-
- KVRer
- 1 posts since 21 Apr, 2004
3rding the notion
- u-he
- Topic Starter
- 28067 posts since 8 Aug, 2002 from Berlin
Hmmm, I think that's not really cool. It would require a new plugin ID and thus everybody who has already made a song would need two versions of VA, which have only little difference. Also, they would not be able to load their own presets into the new version.Sascha Franck wrote:OK, probably the easiest way to get both parties happy would be to simply leave 1.0 as is and have 1.1 as a separate install.
I guess that most people have no need for an extra version, and they'd expect the updated version to replace the current in their existing songs. Vice versa, I would guess that a seperate version would introduce more problems than it solves...
Unless there are any really hard cases, i.e. people who build songs with automating 20 or more parameters, I would prefer to go for the clean solution.
Cheers,
Urs
-
- KVRist
- 354 posts since 13 Jul, 2003 from Berlin
Personally, I don't have any songs with automation, and yes, two of the same kind can be confusing. But then again, everything in life sort of is.
Hans
Hans
-
- KVRist
- 132 posts since 21 Mar, 2003
I'm for the clean solution (ok, I'm on Windows and I'm waiting for the final release to use this in my tracks, meaning I'm not going to get automation troubles). Moreover, arpeggiator automation doesn't look like a very useful feature.
- KVRist
- 443 posts since 12 Feb, 2004
I would be happy about the new automation scheme with the ability to automate the filters plus the addition of new features at the expense of the steppers automation.
01001001 01110100 00100111 01110011 00100000 01100011 01100001 01101100 01101100 01100101 01100100 00100000 00100010 01000100 01100001 01101001 01110011 01111001 00101110 00100010
-
- KVRist
- 42 posts since 2 Apr, 2004 from Melbourne, Aus...
Either way is fine here Urs... I'll leave it in your dextrous hands
____
...™
-----
...™
-----
- u-he
- Topic Starter
- 28067 posts since 8 Aug, 2002 from Berlin
To get a picture what I mean by improvisation, here are some hints:
The arpeggiator's step control sequence will get a new modulation parameter (16 sliders) that can be used to modulate cutoff etc. for each step. This has been tested in a synth I made for a magazine cd, and it's a great feature! I would take away automation for gate time, length, number of voices etc., but I would leave the new modulator in.
The filters will get 2 new parameters especially for the 3 new filter types. In particular the new "FilterFM" parameter would be good to have automatable!
The new built-in delay will be at the end of the list anyway, so it won't affect the automation data anyway...
Cheers,
Urs
The arpeggiator's step control sequence will get a new modulation parameter (16 sliders) that can be used to modulate cutoff etc. for each step. This has been tested in a synth I made for a magazine cd, and it's a great feature! I would take away automation for gate time, length, number of voices etc., but I would leave the new modulator in.
The filters will get 2 new parameters especially for the 3 new filter types. In particular the new "FilterFM" parameter would be good to have automatable!
The new built-in delay will be at the end of the list anyway, so it won't affect the automation data anyway...
Cheers,
Urs
-
- KVRAF
- 7672 posts since 9 Nov, 2003 from Netherlands
-
- KVRAF
- 3002 posts since 24 Nov, 2003 from Heidelberg&Hamburg
" space for a couple of planned additions" seems always to be a good thing . So I voted for it, as everybody up to now did. And for all the non-professionals (signed people and so on) getting again to listen to your older songs with some automation in it and doing some settings again can't be a bad thing, no time pressure, so one might even better old stuff. Maybe.
Then nobody says you couldn't finish your songs with the old version, right? That's part of what Sascha meant I think. Finished, install the new that's coming on...
cheers! Never regretted to get that good-sounding Filterscape.
Then nobody says you couldn't finish your songs with the old version, right? That's part of what Sascha meant I think. Finished, install the new that's coming on...
cheers! Never regretted to get that good-sounding Filterscape.
-
- KVRAF
- 2217 posts since 15 Jul, 2003
well looking at the results there's not much question
as someone who has had to live with developing some software with some design issues, I'd say it's always better to take the pain up front and get it over with than live with limits and quirks for the life of the 'released' product
as someone who has had to live with developing some software with some design issues, I'd say it's always better to take the pain up front and get it over with than live with limits and quirks for the life of the 'released' product
-
- KVRAF
- 13090 posts since 14 Nov, 2000 from Hannover / Germany
Urs, why would applying a new ID result in older presets not being loadable?
I can only compare to Kontakt 1-2. Kontakt 2 will load all my Kontakt 1 presets just fine, without any sonic differences.
However, if you plan to replace the current version, I'd say go for improvements rather than for backwards compatibility. It seesm most people would be happy with that.
I still fail to see the problems a separate version might cause though, I mean, you can just use both... Of course, there's allways the "more installers to take care of" problem - but it has never been a true problem for me anyways.
I can only compare to Kontakt 1-2. Kontakt 2 will load all my Kontakt 1 presets just fine, without any sonic differences.
However, if you plan to replace the current version, I'd say go for improvements rather than for backwards compatibility. It seesm most people would be happy with that.
I still fail to see the problems a separate version might cause though, I mean, you can just use both... Of course, there's allways the "more installers to take care of" problem - but it has never been a true problem for me anyways.
There are 3 kinds of people:
Those who can do maths and those who can't.
Those who can do maths and those who can't.
-
- KVRer
- 8 posts since 26 Nov, 2003
Urs wrote:Dear Filterscape Users,
as you might know, I'm currently deep in the process of finishing Filterscape V1.1 (which will also be the final Win version). This - free - update will also include a couple of improvements, mostly derived from feature requests the and experience of 5 months.
Now... a major problem of FilterscapeVA has always been, that the filter parameters are at the end of a long list, and that some hosts such as Live 4 do not let you automate them. So, what I would like to do to improve FilterscapeVA is, I want to take out the parameters of the Arpeggiator Step Control from the list of automatable parameters. This would make the list muuuuch shorter, it would make the Filter parameters accessible for automation and it would give me some space for a couple of planned additions.
But: Changing the list of parameters is equivalent to creating an incompatibility to existing automation data. Hence, if you have already created automation tracks for FilterscapeVA in your songs, you would have to re-assign these tracks to the new parameter structure. Or - for instance if you have automated any Arpeggiator Step Control values - the automation tracks would get lost.
I think it would be consequent to do the proposed change, because you would also get some new stuff that's not yet in, and I can't imagine that automating the Arp Step Control is something very useful at all...
However, I'll let you decide...
Thanks,
Urs
Yes
P.S.: Legit Filterscape users only, please!