MuLab & MUX VST 7.4.6

[BlackWinny]

The trouble with how it is at the moment is that you can't expand the window as it affects the picture. Which gives a distorted view of your front panel 'project.' In order to keep aspect ratio and proper size when temporarily enlarging, you have to edit the picture, mess about with your front panel, then re-edit the picture

Solution: As long as you're designing your front panel, use a large enough picture (evenetually with extra empty space) so you have all extra workspace you need during design. Then when it's ready you can optimize the size of the front panel and its background picture.

A question, Jo: is that background image organized in mosaïc?... meaning when the chosen image is too small it is repeated (partially or not, upto the total width of the current panel) in width as well as in height.

If it is done like this (I have not checked) the solution would be perhaps for the user to not use any background image or to use a very small background image (a small uniformly coloured squared of 32x32 for example) as long as this developer hasn't totally finished the organization of his panel. Then once the user estimates that his panel is finished he now terminates by putting his real background which this time will be necessarily designed to be at the right size, the user having now perfectly calculated that size.

Perhaps I say something wrong or even perhaps I completely miss the point... but it could be a suggestion. I let you answer...

[MuTools]

It's resized = shrinked/stretched.

[BlackWinny]

It's resized = shrinked/stretched.

And it could not be set optionally in the option panel of MUX/Mulab?

Checked = Background: shrinked/stretched
Unchecked = Background: single mosaic organization

That way the user would use the option which fits the best for his environment... or until the end of his development of a panel.


It's just a suggestion, to try to contribute to find a solution which could be twice easy to implement and solving the issue...

[sl23]

Solution: As long as you're designing your front panel, use a large enough picture (evenetually with extra empty space) so you have all extra workspace you need during design. Then when it's ready you can optimize the size of the front panel and its background picture.

Yes, I understand how it works, that's not the issue. The issue is, that if I, or indeed anyone I share it with, decides to rearrange or add certain things to the front panel, it requires adding that extra padding, and removing it, temporarily each time edit's are needed/wanted.

Thing is, how it was originally is far far better than how it is now! I don't understand why you think it's better now? It gives no benefit, yet causes problems. Previously we could just enlarge the front panel to add stuff temporarily, move it about and put it in place. Now we have to edit the graphics just to perform that task!!! Doesn't make sense to me? Originally I asked if you could add an internal resize option to make it easier to use, but you've done the opposite, as far as I'm concerned. No offence meant btw, I know you work hard, and I do appreciate it, really.

[sl23]

Checked = Background: shrinked/stretched
Unchecked = Background: single mosaic organization

Thanks, that's the answer I was looking for. Except the old way wasn't mosaic, it just placed the picture inside the front panel and enlarging the FP would increase workspace without enlarging/repeating the picture. Shrinking the workspace would cover the picture. But to get it right you would right click empty space of FP and select Optimise Size.

Sorry for raving on about this, I just feel this needs enhancing.

[MuTools]

And it could not be set optionally in the option panel of MUX/Mulab?

I'll keep things as is. There are more prio things to work on. It's simple and straightforward as it is and also important: It avoids any complications wrt the "GUI Scale" feature.

[MuTools]

The issue is, that if I, or indeed anyone I share it with, decides to rearrange or add certain things to the front panel, it requires adding that extra padding, and removing it, temporarily each time edit's are needed/wanted.

That's not an issue, that's exactly how it works. As long as you are in design stage (even when you share it with a co-designer) keep your front panel + back pic large enough so you have extra workspace so you don't need to resize the front panel + back pic all the time. Simple, straightforward, easy. And it avoids any complications wrt the GUI Scale feature.

[sl23]

I see, so... it's to make your life easier, not ours?

Maybe one day...

[MuTools]

I see, so... it's to make your life easier, not ours?

Or maybe you still don't get it, although i explained it many times now. It's related to to GUI Scale feature. And the solution is very workable, no prob there.

[sl23]

You're right, it works, but is more of a pain in the ass to use compared to the old way. No amount of explaining will change that! From a user perspective, I couldn't give a rat's ass about GUI scalability! I never had an issue with that before. Now I have an issue with front panel pictures! And, you seem to think it's better stretching and forcing users to work more in graphics editing apps as a result! You've even stated that above!

As for 'not getting it' what is there to not understand? Enlarge the front panel = picture stretches. Shrink FP = pic shrinks. End of story. What you don't seem to 'get' is that this not as good as the way it worked before I requested you to change it.

I think you have serious problems either understanding me or explaining your pov, perhaps it's a language thing? But going on about GUI scale feature doesn't help me solve my issue. An issue that I will have every time I want to add a front panel picture, I'm telling you it makes more work and you don't seem to think it does? Despite stating yourself that you have to edit the graphic in an editor, EVERY TIME you want to work on the front panel, OR have two versions just and keep switching between them!

Am I dumb, or is that a backwards step from how things worked before? Well, I expect a few sarcastic comments, obviously, but that aside, the end result is that it is a step BACKWARDS!

Excuse my ranting, Jo, but you are a really frustrating person to explain things to. I try my best to be patient but your explanations rarely do justice to your knowledge. If you don't want to do it as this will help move on to a different way in future, say so. I'd prefer that instead of all this stuff about GUI scaling that doesn't concern me.

I really think you need to take a look at where you're going, seriously, cos I can see me giving up on MuLab. Not because it's a bad app, but because of things like this. development is hampered, not your own fault, but still, everything is given priorities and things people actually WANT are given a back seat for the majority vote. Am I wrong? How long is that wishlist? Bet it fills 10 pages of A4 paper at least! and I'm talking just requests without tech data. You cannot handle the demand. That is the real cause of all this. I love MuLab, but I'm getting frustrated with the lack of things I want out of it, so that you can work on things everyone else wants!!! I paid too ya know!

Perhaps I'll just stick to the free version from now on! Sorry, but that's how I feel.

[Michael L]

Sorry, but this post reminds me of watching a child throw a tantrum in public because she did not get her way.

[sl23]

That's your opinion, you're entitled to it, as am I. So what you're saying is that we're not allowed to air our views then? I'm sure you gave that same opinion before didn't you?

I've been a user of mulab since the end of M3's life cycle. Since that time, very few of my requests have made it in without someone else adding comments of agreement. As Jo''s time is mostly spent on mulab, from the horses mouth, I find it strange that many other developers of FREE apps accept and implement many more requests than Jo, and don't wait for more than one person to want that request.

These are valid arguments. Believe me, I don't want to put jo down, that's not my aim, my aim is to air my grievance. It's a forum. A forum is for speaking your mind not wrapping things in cotton wool so as not to offend. Which is also not my aim.

Take a look at mulab's history from inception to now. I remember Luna, do you? I waited til it got better to buy it, and it really has improved. But it's taken more than 10 years just to get to this stage!! How long did it take bigwig to be developed and surpass mulab?

Yeah, yeah, more developers, blah, blah, blah. That's the problem, that's the one thing digit was right about, where is mulab gonna be in ten years time? Maybe by then we'll have time stretching! Wasn't that the point of M7? To add time stretching.

So you carry on slating me, despite the fact I'm right, AGAIN!! No matter how diplomatic Jo''s attempts are, he's made this function worse and won't revert it. Why? For GUI scaling! What exactly is that? Because I, as a paying user, don't see the benefit and have seen little worth upgrading to M7 for. Yes I'm grateful. Yes I understand Jo''s predicament, probably more than most due to his upfront pm. But understanding only stretches so far until you have to ask, is it even worth it?

[TheoXD]

Well I did suggest to open source the GUI part of the program, which would allow volunteers to make these changes, or to hire freelancers to make changes for them. Sure it's not going to take developers interest right away since it's still going to be a proprietary program, but if the UI toolkit is open sourced, as well as editor implementation (not the audio engine itself) then it should receive enough attention from people wanting to use it in their own applications, at the same time improving the mother program - mulab. Frontpanel editor would probably be more flexible, with anchors, sprites, scaling modes and stuff, preferences would probably have categories, e.c.t.

[pljones]

Hi, what's the latest MuX version, currently? Any chance of a 7.3.19 (I just saved with this MuLab and realised I can't open in an older MuX...)

[sl23]

Thank you for sort of backing me up TheoXD

I know I'm probably over exaggerating this, well it may seem that way, but despite Jo''s limitations, he's only human after all, development is way too slow. How long has it taken just for this time stretching to be added? How many MONTHS? If I'm honest, I'm not in the slightest bit interested in it, but I have to wait for that to be done before anything else can be added. Like sorting this front panel issue, or adding button on/off control to FP.

There are several other small things I'd like, I don't bother posting about them as its highly unlikely they'll see the light of day. But these small things can make a difference. Had I not suggested colour scheming, would it have been added? Maybe, maybe not.

Perhaps some, like Michael believe I'm being a selfish child, but what have you done to try and promote Mulab? I have added links to Mulab via my signature on many sites and even added Mulab to Symenu's auto update system and keep it updated using it's sps system. It's not much, but spreading the word is all we can do without paying for it. I hope that increasing Mutools user base will provide incentive and money to expand. I'm not holding my breath though.

Look, Jo, I'm not unsympathetic to your situation, I feel for you, truly, it must be very difficult. But my life is difficult too, and who else can make that claim. You're doing a great job and I mean no disrespect but you need to try something to expand and increase development and the same time profits. You've had several people saying this now. Eventually you'll lose customers if things don't improve.

I know you probably still hold a grudge against me, though you won't admit it, least not publicly, but forget that and just listen to what users are saying. Yeah, I know, you do, but there's only so much you are physically capable of, which is why you are in need of expansion to keep this project alive.

Haven't you noticed how much this forum has died down because you've spent the last months on time stretch? And alot of the activity is to do with issues regarding crashes, bugs, or licensing problems. Not criticising, as you're bloody good at sorting anything Mulab related, my point is that the activity has lessened due to very little improvement.

I'd say around 90% of requests have been turned down and added to that fabled wish list. That's not good for business? Or maybe you think it is?

I sincerely hope things improve as Mulab is simply brilliant despite my grievances I wouldn't want to switch to another Daw, in fact, I've been thinking of switching back to hardware for a while, perhaps this is the incentive I needed? Though I can't deny Mulab's attraction due to its fun and usefulness