FilterscapeVA improvement poll

[jbmix]

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)

Exactly what I was thinking.. but I'm certainly no developer!! Just a dumb user who was worried about how to figure out what parameters to re-map and where.

So, would the only automation parameters which would be affected be those for the step sequencer? All other automation would be safe after update? If that's the case, then I think I'll go along with the crowd and vote for "BRING IT ON!" Also.. Once a user updates to the newer version, if multiple automation parameters have been chanced to "unused," how would we know which one goes to which new parameter? I, for one, DO have automation on some of my Filterscape instances, but I can't remember which parameters in each song.. if they are lost after the update, it would be difficult to remap them if it no longer tells what they used to be.. so I'm trying to figure out how that would work.

Bottom line is, I don't want to hold up the U-he Express Train of Progress!! Go ahead, and I'll just deal with it.. still, would be nice to somehow know which parameters I've lost when trying to make new assignments (in the "old" songs).

Cheers.
jb

[aMUSEd]

I think you need to bite the bullet and make the improvements needed. In the long term it will pay off even if it means a few temporary inconveniences for some.

[dknla]

I vote for moving forward.

[efluon]

yep, you can always bounce the tracks if necessary before upgrading. lots of crap in software is caused by backwards compatibility.

[jamieh]

It's better to go for the improvements. The automation problem wouldn't effect me.
J

[Urs]

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.)

Hmmm... my current intention was "no, they'd be gone"... but now that I think about it, I could just change the order... putting the less important parameters behind the important ones (which means a deep surgery in the engine... ugh...)

Soooo... something comes to my mind that I had planned for a later update... some tech stuff that you don't need to bother with... I must think about it.

However, yes, "arpeggiator snapshots" is something I'm having in the back of my mind. But it's kinda complex matter, especially if you look at is as "morphable arpeggiator snapshots". So, this is something I had planned for my first host/composition software rather than a plugin

Caution! No questions about latter will be answered! *grin*

Cheers,

Urs

[Urs]

Exactly what I was thinking.. but I'm certainly no developer!! Just a dumb user who was worried about how to figure out what parameters to re-map and where.

jb, we should work out a migration plan. Like a step by step description about what to do in each host to re-match the automation paths... I'll provide a new build to the beta group tomorrow... check your beta mails then...

Cheers,

Urs

[pbone]

So, this is something I had planned for my first host/composition software rather than a plugin

Caution! No questions about latter will be answered! *grin*

Cheers,

Urs

[Derek up North]

I was tempted to vote "no" just to stand out from the crowd, but I really don't see any downside to the planned approach for me (as I haven't automated anything anywhere yet) and it looks like it's going to be minimally disruptive for users at large.

Right then, now we've all agreed when can we have it

Regards,

Derek.

[discostu]

Yes - I'm for any improvements that require major change now/early (regardless of backwards compatibility issues).

Cheers,
Stewart

[cbm]

So, this is something I had planned for my first host/composition software rather than a plugin

Caution! No questions about latter will be answered! *grin*

Let's see, parsing this sentence gives me:
Former == host/composition software
Latter == a plugin

Excellent. Now, about that composition software...

---

About the automation issue, I say break things early. I am willing to modify my Filterscape tracks as needed.

[Urs]

Errrmm...



Urs

[willb]

However, yes, "arpeggiator snapshots" is something I'm having in the back of my mind. But it's kinda complex matter, especially if you look at is as "morphable arpeggiator snapshots".

Urs, I don't think that having morphable arpeggiator snapshots makes nearly as much sense as morphable EQ snapshots. (It could provide some cool effects, but it seems that the much more common case would be to switch completely from one pattern to another.)

If there were just a bank of patterns and you could automate switching between them (à la ReBirth), that would be great. Such a capability could probably eliminate 90+% of potential applications for arpeggiator step automation.

In any case, I voted for "progress."

[McBain]

I vote we let Urs do his thang!

[Kubi]

Yes, please, in favor of Urs' plan A.

Innovation Yay!, Backwards compatibility Booo!

(In this case, at least. If MOTU decides to write a DP version that won't let me open my old sequences, I'll freak...)