Sad state of Native Instruments

[midi_transmission]

The reason they're not quick to provide resizable UI with 4K compatibility is because, for the majority of their customer base, it's not important. Most producers are still using 1080p monitors. At least, according to the statistics I've read (more or less 80% for SHD and the rest is 4K).

It's also because 4k is a bad technical decision by the manufacturers. You have to deal with non integer scaling (1.25/1.5) with all current os, which might appear sharper at first glance, but it's actually a bit blurry when you look closely and look less sharp on fine structures than using a lower resolution with 100% scaling. Apple uses 5k on its 27" screen because you can scale everything by a factor of 2. It's the only way to get perfect sharpness.

[digitalboytn]

Massive X looks and feels like a Reaktor synth as well. It's like they looked in the Reaktor user library from 2010 and thought "yeah lets mash all the controls together like that, people seem to like it!"

I don't agree with this ...

I think that the GUI and the layout is fine..

It's the kontrol issues and the funky browser that makes it harder to drive...

But the sound of those filters

[audiojunkie]

The reason they're not quick to provide resizable UI with 4K compatibility is because, for the majority of their customer base, it's not important. Most producers are still using 1080p monitors. At least, according to the statistics I've read (more or less 80% for SHD and the rest is 4K).

That’s something I absolutely cannot understand. I’m using Linux, and I’ve been using a 4k laptop for a few years now. I would have expected Windows to be so much further ahead on this front. Yet, here we are with 80% of Windows users living in the low rez dark ages. Go figure!

Hmmm... Personally, I've used 3 Dell UltraSharp monitors (2x24", 1x27") for years, and see no advantage whatsoever to going 4K. Additionally, here's some background/details on 4K and Windows issues:

https://www.ghacks.net/2020/01/02/the-p ... k-monitor/

https://www.howtogeek.com/661321/are-4k ... puter-use/

That's fine for you. If you don't see the benefits, you don't need it. My point was that one would think that Linux would be technologically behind Windows, since Windows is a long established OS, and Linux has only in the last few years become viable for easy audio production I was surprised that Windows was still having this problem. I read in your articles, and was disappointed that neither articles seemed to mention on of the best benefits of high resolution monitors--the ability to upscale the screens, while keeping the original DPI. This is better known in the Apple world as HiDPI. This is the best benefit (IMHO) for high resolution screens, not double the resolution like the articles suggested. Using your two 1080p screens as they use the high resolution screens in the article certainly beats buying a single screen for the same amount of real estate. Also, the concerns that the first article mentions about the likelihood that apps that don't support high resolutions would be small and difficult to view is simply common sense--you want apps that support scaling up for high resolution screens to benefit from high resolution screens. I ditched all unsupported apps and started buying and using only those apps that support scaling the gui up on high resolution screens (HiDPI). Everything is use scales up and looks absolutely crystal clear because of the benefits of HiDPI. Again, I'm not putting down anyone for their choices, but my surprise came because I thought these problems would have been taken care of long ago on Windows.

To bring things around back to the topic of this thread, lack of support for scaling up for high resolution screens was a big part of the complaints in the early part of this thread (about 80 pages ago) about Native Instruments, along with lack of innovation and slow VST3 adoption. I only started reading this thread a few days ago, and I'm about halfway into it, and not yet caught up with everything (thus the reason the high resolution issue was fresh on my mind). As I understand it, at least the browser has been improved in Kontakt 7.0. Did the actual GUI part of Kontakt ever get the upscaled graphics support? Just curious.

Again, not trying to derail or argue with Windows users, so please don't take it that way.

Here (for those who don't understand the real benefit of high resolution screens) is an article that explains the best benefit:

https://medium.com/elementaryos/hidpi-i ... b9bb110b43

This article was written back in 2017.

https://medium.com/elementaryos/top-3-m ... .xitth4sax

Again, the article was written back in 2017.

[audiojunkie]

The reason they're not quick to provide resizable UI with 4K compatibility is because, for the majority of their customer base, it's not important. Most producers are still using 1080p monitors. At least, according to the statistics I've read (more or less 80% for SHD and the rest is 4K).

It's also because 4k is a bad technical decision by the manufacturers. You have to deal with non integer scaling (1.25/1.5) with all current os, which might appear sharper at first glance, but it's actually a bit blurry when you look closely and look less sharp on fine structures than using a lower resolution with 100% scaling. Apple uses 5k on its 27" screen because you can scale everything by a factor of 2. It's the only way to get perfect sharpness.

Your argument only applies to those who don't use a factor of 2. This is not a bad technical decision, this is allowing the user to have more freedom to make the decision his/herself. If a user wants HiDPI, scale everything to 200%. If the user wants more real estate rather than the benefits of HiDPI, that option is available too. Even if a person chooses to not use exactly 200% scaling, there is still the benefit of the increased DPI when choosing to have more real estate on a screen. The manufacturers and Microsoft could have simply hidden that functionality--then everyone would have screens just like Macs. But they chose to give the user the option, which I feel is a much better technical decision.

[pdxindy]

Your argument only applies to those who don't use a factor of 2. This is not a bad technical decision, this is allowing the user to have more freedom to make the decision his/herself.

What you are calling freedom, I call a burden that takes time and energy away from my actual interests

[audiojunkie]

Your argument only applies to those who don't use a factor of 2. This is not a bad technical decision, this is allowing the user to have more freedom to make the decision his/herself.

What you are calling freedom, I call a burden that takes time and energy away from my actual interests

Maybe MacOS would be more your thing then if you prefer to give up choice in the name of ease. There's something for everyone out there.

[pdxindy]

Maybe MacOS would be more your thing then if you prefer to give up choice in the name of ease. There's something for everyone out there.

These days the term choice is mostly a clever marketing gimmick.

Your advice is appreciated. (I mean it)

[audiojunkie]

Maybe MacOS would be more your thing then if you prefer to give up choice in the name of ease. There's something for everyone out there.

These days the term choice is mostly a clever marketing gimmick.

Your advice is appreciated. (I mean it)

[gaf_thit]

Maybe MacOS would be more your thing then if you prefer to give up choice in the name of ease. There's something for everyone out there.

These days the term choice is mostly a clever marketing gimmick.

Your advice is appreciated. (I mean it)

Get a raum!

[LFO8]

Maybe MacOS would be more your thing then if you prefer to give up choice in the name of ease. There's something for everyone out there.

These days the term choice is mostly a clever marketing gimmick.

Your advice is appreciated. (I mean it)

Get a raum!

But which one, Airy, Grounded or Cosmetic??

[martinjuenke]

Maybe MacOS would be more your thing then if you prefer to give up choice in the name of ease. There's something for everyone out there.

These days the term choice is mostly a clever marketing gimmick.

Your advice is appreciated. (I mean it)

Get a raum!

But which one, Airy, Grounded or Cosmetic??

Cosmetic Reverb: Botox for the Mix

[LFO8]

Lol... was meant to read Cosmic

[mabian]

Sad state of this thread...

[martinjuenke]

Weep now!

[midi_transmission]

The reason they're not quick to provide resizable UI with 4K compatibility is because, for the majority of their customer base, it's not important. Most producers are still using 1080p monitors. At least, according to the statistics I've read (more or less 80% for SHD and the rest is 4K).

It's also because 4k is a bad technical decision by the manufacturers. You have to deal with non integer scaling (1.25/1.5) with all current os, which might appear sharper at first glance, but it's actually a bit blurry when you look closely and look less sharp on fine structures than using a lower resolution with 100% scaling. Apple uses 5k on its 27" screen because you can scale everything by a factor of 2. It's the only way to get perfect sharpness.

Your argument only applies to those who don't use a factor of 2. This is not a bad technical decision, this is allowing the user to have more freedom to make the decision his/herself. If a user wants HiDPI, scale everything to 200%. If the user wants more real estate rather than the benefits of HiDPI, that option is available too. Even if a person chooses to not use exactly 200% scaling, there is still the benefit of the increased DPI when choosing to have more real estate on a screen. The manufacturers and Microsoft could have simply hidden that functionality--then everyone would have screens just like Macs. But they chose to give the user the option, which I feel is a much better technical decision.

You got me wrong. It's not a bad technical decision to offer the whole range of scaling in software, but to offer physical screens that have to use non integer scaling to be useful.

The problem is that using a factor of 2 on a 4k screen results in an effective area of fulHD. Which is huge or better a very small real estate on a 27" or 32" screen. On a 24" screen 4k is fine.

Also be aware that non integer scaling on macOS causes higher load. There are some complains about that too. Using a 4k display with a scaled resolution on a Mac can cause more load than using a 5k screen.

That's why 5k is a better technical choice for a 27" screen. The problem is that there are not a lot models available.