UVI Falcon 3

[Jac459]

Again still waiting for the explanation of why you acknowledge you get a performance boost by splitting each layer in a layered patch into its own instance, but having the plugin do the same internally has no effect

Again not talking about Diva talking about layered patches in Falcon

It is not the topic that is boring but your answers.

As per the explanations, they were given numerous time to you by many people and yet you haven't understood a single word.
It was never said by any of us at any moment that a plug-in using multi-cores to distribute processing has no effect. I challenge you to find any post saying that. What we were discussing the whole time was the advantages and drawbacks of letting this multi-cores distribution be done by the OS, the host or the VST.

[IvyBirds]

As per the explanations, they were given numerous time to you by many people and yet you haven't understood a single word.
It was never said by any of us at any moment that a plug-in using multi-cores to distribute processing has no effect. I challenge you to find any post saying that. What we were discussing the whole time was the advantages and drawbacks of letting this multi-cores distribution be done by the OS, the host or the VST.

I have understood everything and I disagree with them

Built right into the VST3 spec that every VST3 host should support is the ability to have multiple audio busses inside of a plugin. If you configure a plugin that supports layers where each layer is its own bus which again the VST3 spec supports and assign a separate thread/core to each one which your DAW can absolutely see, you have the same exact advantages as if you put each layer inside of separate instance

Where your logic falls apart which you continue to ignore is if a DAW is so good at managing resources why is there an advantage of putting each layer in a separate instance? An advantage you yourself acknowledge? Why do the same people who say multi cores/threads in a single plugin hold no advantages for layered patches then turn around and say put each layer in its own instance and force the issue in your DAW so each one gets it's own thread or core?

Why not just put them all inside of one instance and let the DAW manage that? You are talking out of both sides of your mouth. You want the DAW to manage everything but then suggest workarounds because to let the DAW manage everything is ineffective and inefficient

You are saying "let the DAW manage everything" then saying "the DAW sucks at that so assign each layer it's own thread and put them all inside of separate instances"

Like I said I understand what you are saying and I find it lacking

[Widowsky]

Thanks for clarifying the UX part... Maybe it can be simpler that I am thinking and your examples are indeed very logical, but will that be enough ? I am not so sure.

There is a bit of work to be done, as there are many logical issues to be dealt with, but it can be done. I have some experience in designing complex interfaces (including 2 reaper themes) and there is nothing that can't be fixed in Falcon without changing the paradigm. It just needs to lay things down in a more logical intuitive manner so you don't have to think when you look at it - everything can make sense at the first look.

The hardest part is for the makers to realize that they invented the thing, and to them everything looks logical because they know everything inside-out about it. Once they realize that, they should hire an UX designer to make it easy to grasp even to the most novice users.

Many developers underestimate the power of UX in the success of a product. UX can make or break a product, and history is full of examples. Especially in the music producing world where you have to move fast to put ideas into sound, before losing inspiration due to increasing frustration.

I agree 100%.

What Falcon needs most of all is more rigor and attention to detail in the UI/UX. Its developers certainly need an outside eye to achieve this. They should hire you.

Apart from that, Falcon is a winner.

[Lerian]

What Falcon needs most of all is more rigor and attention to detail in the UI/UX. Its developers certainly need an outside eye to achieve this. They should hire you.

Me or someone else, as long as they chose someone experienced with complex flows and not a dribbble UI designer with posh colors but a lack of understanding of basic UX concepts. Even though its not that complicated: just put everything in place in a logical manner, lay down a clearer signal flow path, put all the modifiers and fx exactly where they affect the signal, and pay attention to bugs. It doesn't have to be everything in one screen, we're in 2024, scrolling is already a second nature, and there's a lot of screen real estate available. Also the tree on the left helps with the navigation, but that too can be improved.

But, as I said above, the hardest part is for them to admit they have a UX problem. Falcon is a great product, and it deserves a proper interface. One can only hope that the devs will read this and do something about it.

[Lerian]

I don't know what are your thoughts on Rob Papen synths. For a UX designer I guess it must be painful to watch... I like the synths but oh my.... What a pain to watch...

I'm not familiar with RP plugins and their workflow, as I don't have any. But looking at some screenshots they seem quite outdated design-wise. Also many have a white or bright color background, probably without a dark mode option, which is a shame nowadays - we spend many hours inside daws, and most of them went dark to be easier on the eyes, therefore any white window is a pain on the eyes.

[Jac459]

I don't know what are your thoughts on Rob Papen synths. For a UX designer I guess it must be painful to watch... I like the synths but oh my.... What a pain to watch...

I'm not familiar with RP plugins and their workflow, as I don't have any. But looking at some screenshots they seem quite outdated design-wise. Also many have a white or bright color background, probably without a dark mode option, which is a shame nowadays - we spend many hours inside daws, and most of them went dark to be easier on the eyes, therefore any white window is a pain on the eyes.

Yeah actually they were among the best sounding plugins maybe 10-5 years ago and then (imho) started to lag behind. In particular in UI as you can see.

I think maybe it is similar to Falcon, they don't see it because used to it....

[Stan Navi]

One thing I wish for Falcon - it is to save samples in preset, not in separate folder, so preset would contain included samples. UX is workable, not that bad.

[Lerian]

UX is workable, not that bad.

Yeah. Everything is workable. Even the black plague was workable.

My point was making instruments friendly. And fun. And make it the first amendment to any plugin developer - spend more time on the UX then on how it sounds and what it can do. You can have the best thing in the world, but if only 5 people know how to use that thing, its useless. Just do the work and get rid of the friction, and everything will get better, including sales (so you won't have to restrict potential users by not offering any demo).

Don't get me wrong, indeed is not THAT bad. But it is bad on many aspects. Enough bad that many people are put off by it, and that, by my standards, is unacceptable. Because its something that they CAN FIX. And there are clear rules in this field, so nobody needs to reinvent anything. Just follow the guidelines.

As Amon Tobin puts it: "Look at the way plugins are designed - half of them look like you're controlling a nuclear submarine, or something. I think this design is to make you feel like you're doing something vital, when actually.. you're really just having fun most of the time."

[bmanic]

What Falcon needs most of all is more rigor and attention to detail in the UI/UX. Its developers certainly need an outside eye to achieve this. They should hire you.

Me or someone else, as long as they chose someone experienced with complex flows and not a dribbble UI designer with posh colors but a lack of understanding of basic UX concepts. Even though its not that complicated: just put everything in place in a logical manner, lay down a clearer signal flow path, put all the modifiers and fx exactly where they affect the signal, and pay attention to bugs. It doesn't have to be everything in one screen, we're in 2024, scrolling is already a second nature, and there's a lot of screen real estate available. Also the tree on the left helps with the navigation, but that too can be improved.

But, as I said above, the hardest part is for them to admit they have a UX problem. Falcon is a great product, and it deserves a proper interface. One can only hope that the devs will read this and do something about it.

And they need to realize UX is NOT just about layout or graphics. The total USABILITY, which is by far the most important metric in UX design, is also affected by how controls work and what actions can be done where. Parts of this is 100% objective in nature and has no room for subjectivity. It can literally be measured. Doing a specific function using 2 mouse clicks and minimal mouse cursor movement is better than 4 clicks and tons of scrolling and menu diving. This is completely objective and can't really be debated.

Falcon is chock full of really dumb user interface hurdles and objectively bad. There is no subjectivity to this. It's all empirically measurable.

It frustration scales exponentially the more you dig deep down into power user territory.

[bmanic]

UX is workable, not that bad.

No, it's bad. Very bad.

[Liero]

Yes a thousand times. Good UX design has ACTUAL RESULTS in reduced clicks and reduced distance the cursor has to move. Falcon is absolutely horrible in how many clicks and distance is required for just building a basic patch! It's a f****** gym workout for your fingers.

Especially bad is the amount of vertical mouse movement required in Falcon, which is actually a lot more annoying than horizontal movement because of how hand/wrist physiology with a mouse works. Wake up UVI!

If I sound a tad dramatic it's only because I do this crap for a living and these things end up mattering. And I'm tired 30 years of engineers in the plugin space with no design sense having the say in these matters.

[Widowsky]

UX is workable, not that bad.

No, it's bad. Very bad.

Not true.

In essence, Falcon is a glorified sampler mangler with loads of high quality modules and advanced synth capabilities. Despite its untested UX and its thoughtless UI, I find it much more enjoyable and playable than Kontakt.

In any case, and as others have pointed out, a bad UX and a silly UI are kind of what defines music computing, unfortunately.

[Lerian]

In essence, Falcon is a glorified sampler mangler with loads of high quality modules and advanced synth capabilities. Despite its untested UX and its thoughtless UI, I find it much more enjoyable and playable than Kontakt.

Sir, what your are doing here is called whataboutism, and is not really helping anyone. If we start justifying poor decisions on other people's poor decisions, the only way forward is down.

Also, Falcon is a bit more than kontakt, and that bit is very important to advanced users, exactly the users frustrated by the bad UX. For those who do preset browsing and tweak a knob here and there.. its workable as someone already pointed out.

In any case, and as others have pointed out, a bad UX and a silly UI are kind of what defines music computing, unfortunately.

Here I have to agree with you, and its why there's a phenomenon happening in this space - multiple products competing not with different features, but the same ones with different UX.

I remember having this same conversation on Melda forums, when I was arguing that MRhythmizer was a cool product just a bit confusing about how it works, and I was suggesting to do something about it. Little was done, and soon thereafter 2 other companies released similar products, with improved UX, which sold, and are still selling like crazy. Hardcore Melda fans swear by their tools, but nobody really cares in this space as long as you waste less time to do the same thing, even if the sound is not 100% the same. Time and traction are more precious than features.

[pekbro]

I bought it when it was released for quite a bit less that it's offered for now (pretty sure), they haven't charged me a dime for a few nice updates either. I got no complaints...

[Trancit]

...