MuDrum feature request

[Reincke]

Jo's announcement of a new R&D cycle was a trigger to reflect on my workflow. I already posted several feature requests as a result. Here's another (more will follow separately):

I like the MuDrum approach. At the moment there are three reasons why I still prefer a plain MultiSampla for my drum sets:

a) MuDrum has the restriction of 12 MuPads. (I know how to extend this in a patch, but then it's not as simple as a pure MuDrum.)

b) MuDrum requires more than 600 pixel Y graphics resolution (an breaks the "MuLab 5 System Requirements").

c) And most important: For my acoustic drum sets the two sample layers in MuPad are not enough. Velocity layers can not be defined as good as in MultiSampla's zones. On the other hand I think embedding a MultiSampla in each (!) MuPad is a bit oversized. The MultiSampla allows layering many samples for different velocities and sounds pretty good, but lacks the features of MuDrum.

Is there anything I have overlooked? From my point of view a merge of MuDrum/MuPad and MultiSampla/zones would be fine. (Maybe for long term.)
JR

Disclaimer: I am aware of topic http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=357048

[MuTools]

MuDrum requires more than 600 pixel Y graphics resolution (an breaks the "MuLab 5 System Requirements").

Updated the docs

And most important: For my acoustic drum sets the two sample layers in MuPad are not enough. Velocity layers can not be defined as good as in MultiSampla's zones. On the other hand I think embedding a MultiSampla in each (!) MuPad is a bit oversized. The MultiSampla allows layering many samples for different velocities and sounds pretty good, but lacks the features of MuDrum.
Is there anything I have overlooked?

No you didn't overlook anything. Inserting a MultiSampla in Element 3 is the easiest solution. But i also see your point. Taken note.

[Reincke]

Thanks a lot, Jo.

MuDrum requires more than 600 pixel Y graphics resolution (an breaks the "MuLab 5 System Requirements").

Updated the docs

If MuLab evolves to this min. resolution, for me this would become a serious problem, 'cause I'm still working exclusively on a netbook (1024x600).
JR

[MuTools]

It says recommended, not necessary. I just updated the docs because litteraly there was a little mismatch before, as you indicated. If you could use MuLab yesterday, you can still use it today. And towards the future: The more i can make MuLab/MUX versatile and flexible, i will, also wrt screen resolutions. A flexible UI is also important for the day Mu arrives on tablets etc.

[MuTools]

And wrt the MuDrum: Iirc you're not the first one who says the MuDrum UI takes (too) much space. Maybe i should drop the cables and just put the pads near each other, then with a "Output" dropdown list where you can select the target rack. That will spare space. Just thinking loud, need to research it some more.

[Nielzie]

Maybe i should drop the cables and just put the pads near each other, then with a "Output" dropdown list where you can select the target rack. That will spare space.

Please don't drop the cables in MuDrum, they make the routings very intuitive and easy to see

[Reincke]

Please don't drop the cables in MuDrum, they make the routings very intuitive and easy to see

+1
It was not my intention at all to suggest a reduction of MuDrum's functionality. Maybe a re-arrangement of it's gui elements will help? Alternatively scrolling?
JR