Err... so?manix24 wrote:[a lot of things...]
FilterscapeVA improvement poll
-
- KVRAF
- 13444 posts since 14 Nov, 2000 from Hannover / Germany
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.
-
- KVRAF
- 2107 posts since 12 May, 2003 from gone
i voted for the improvement
i think the wisest approach for people with tracks in the works is to not upgrade your plugins 'till your track is done
or get your act together and finish your track so you can upgrade
really let's not be luddites here, and our unfinished masterpieces should't get in the way of progress imo
thanks as always Urs
i think the wisest approach for people with tracks in the works is to not upgrade your plugins 'till your track is done
or get your act together and finish your track so you can upgradereally let's not be luddites here, and our unfinished masterpieces should't get in the way of progress imo
thanks as always Urs
-
- KVRist
- 381 posts since 13 Mar, 2002 from purple
lol
landslide?
landslide?
worst signature evar
-
- KVRian
- 624 posts since 22 Jan, 2003 from USA
I'm a Live4 user, so I whole heartedly agree with the improvements to automation. I wish Ableton would figure out a better way to handle massive amounts of automation parameters, but they haven't yet so thank you for thinking of us, Urs.
-="I beat the Internet...the end guy is hard"=-
-
- u-he
- Topic Starter
- 30209 posts since 8 Aug, 2002 from Berlin
Well, hehe, I could make them loadable over the interface, but I'm not yet at the point of having kinda "importer objects". The current version would reject any preset that was saved with a plugin that has a different ID. And of course, hosts would not load them either...Sascha Franck wrote: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.
I've planned this stuff for Zebra2 tho...
Urs-
- KVRAF
- 13444 posts since 14 Nov, 2000 from Hannover / Germany
OK, point taken, Urs. So, it seems people will prefer improvements over backwards compatibility.
Uh... but then... add some Podolski preset compatibility
Uh... but then... add some Podolski preset compatibility
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
- 161 posts since 9 Apr, 2002
Yep, I am also after improvemnts.
And maybe some kind of document describing "which parameter in old FS should be mapped to which in new FS" , would make the switch a little easier to some folks? (that way they could just convert the automation data)
cheers,
Bart
And maybe some kind of document describing "which parameter in old FS should be mapped to which in new FS" , would make the switch a little easier to some folks? (that way they could just convert the automation data)
cheers,
Bart
-
- u-he
- Topic Starter
- 30209 posts since 8 Aug, 2002 from Berlin
WhaddayathinkIamdoinhere?!?Sascha Franck wrote:Uh... but then... add some Podolski preset compatibility
Why add 3 filter types with Click & FilterFM + ArpModulator if not for Podolski compatibility?!? But I'll probably have to convert them with a batch script rather than build a full blown compatibility layer...
Cheers,
Urs-
- u-he
- Topic Starter
- 30209 posts since 8 Aug, 2002 from Berlin
Yep, that's a good idea! Kinda look up table...FEV wrote:Yep, I am also after improvemnts.
And maybe some kind of document describing "which parameter in old FS should be mapped to which in new FS" , would make the switch a little easier to some folks? (that way they could just convert the automation data)
Cheers,
Urs-
- KVRAF
- 13444 posts since 14 Nov, 2000 from Hannover / Germany
No idea... watching soccer?Urs wrote: WhaddayathinkIamdoinhere?!?
Getting some booze?
If so, continue! I love boozed soccer watching programmers! And yes, that's got to be the most honest statement ever! I'll gladly deal with any sort of update delay in case someone's watching soccer!
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
- 37 posts since 4 Nov, 2002 from Brooklyn, NY USA
Who voted against?
Resons why?
Resons why?
"You blow in this end of the trombone, and sound comes out the other end and disrupts the cosmos." Roswell Rudd Check out my music: http://www.pbone.org/-
- KVRian
- 652 posts since 17 Mar, 2002 from Paris
This has to be the best reason for going with the way Urs wants to do it.Urs wrote:WhaddayathinkIamdoinhere?!?Sascha Franck wrote:Uh... but then... add some Podolski preset compatibility
Why add 3 filter types with Click & FilterFM + ArpModulator if not for Podolski compatibility?!? But I'll probably have to convert them with a batch script rather than build a full blown compatibility layer...
Cheers,
I did get a life,once...but it was faulty, so I sent it back.
-
- KVRist
- 161 posts since 9 Apr, 2002
Ha ha...Urs wrote:Kinda look up table...FEV wrote: And maybe some kind of document describing "which parameter in old FS should be mapped to which in new FS" , would make the switch a little easier to some folks? (that way they could just convert the automation data)
I wouldn't have to read who is the author of this post, to know that he is a developer
cheers,
Bart
-
- KVRer
- 29 posts since 23 Feb, 2005 from Madison, WI, USA
The arpeggiator steps will still be automatable in some hosts, right? I ask because I like this capability. (Of course, providing "arpeggiator snapshots," like the eq snapshots, would be an attractive feature for a future update.)