Poly-Ana: Coming soon from Admiral Quality.
-
- KVRian
- 576 posts since 30 Jan, 2004 from Baja Texas
I like this new red okay, but I 
the original candy apple red one, much better. 
Face it, though, AQ, you're going to have to break this synth into 3 or 4 pages so you can make the knobs big enough to read. Otherwise people are going to take one look at the controls and say to themselves, "Heh, it's just another VA anyway, no loss, just save the money! I'll download MiniMogue Luxus for free."
I can't even read the stuff in the lower left corner. And I'm not going to go out and buy a new computer and monitor just to make your synth work for me.
You've got too much competition from established devs in the free synth market for you to allow yourself to be knotheaded about the gui.
Please do all of us, including yourself a huge favor and make a tiny budge on the gui compromise. You can have 3 or 4 tabbed pages and still maintain the integrity of the beautiful retro look you have developed and over which we are all drooling. Please don't tease us like this, my friend. We're all begging you! Can't you see that!?!?!?!? None of us are saying anything negative about your work - just make the knobs readable.
the original candy apple red one, much better. Face it, though, AQ, you're going to have to break this synth into 3 or 4 pages so you can make the knobs big enough to read. Otherwise people are going to take one look at the controls and say to themselves, "Heh, it's just another VA anyway, no loss, just save the money! I'll download MiniMogue Luxus for free."
I can't even read the stuff in the lower left corner. And I'm not going to go out and buy a new computer and monitor just to make your synth work for me.
You've got too much competition from established devs in the free synth market for you to allow yourself to be knotheaded about the gui.
Please do all of us, including yourself a huge favor and make a tiny budge on the gui compromise. You can have 3 or 4 tabbed pages and still maintain the integrity of the beautiful retro look you have developed and over which we are all drooling. Please don't tease us like this, my friend. We're all begging you! Can't you see that!?!?!?!? None of us are saying anything negative about your work - just make the knobs readable.
RogerPerrin
I'm up to my old hat tricks again.
I'm up to my old hat tricks again.
-
AdmiralQuality AdmiralQuality https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=83902
- Banned
- Topic Starter
- 6657 posts since 10 Oct, 2005 from Toronto, Canada
Noted Roger. But you're not ALL begging me.... as I've mentioned, I get a LOT of mail asking me -- no, making me PROMISE -- not to change a thing. I would be a bit worried if all the feedback I had was just this thread, as it does seem be weighted a bit more towards the "you're insane" side. But I've been through this a few times already and am keeping the faith, for now.
So, sorry, but minimum target system is greater than 1024x768 (though you should still be able to run at 1024 with very little difficulty.)
One of the products that I consider among the closest competition to this one happens to be (approx.) 1012 pixels wide. (Not mentioning any names. I'll leave the direct comparisons up to you folks -- once there's actually something to compare!)
Did a survey before starting and trust me, it's going to occupy exactly the niche we want it to. i.e. HIGH END. (You think it won't fit on your screen? Just wait'll you see how much CPU it uses! hhahahaa
)
So, hang in there. And, really Roger, if my GUI philosophy is killing this product, I'll notice and be compelled to respond. So if you're right you'll get your version eventually. But we're trying it my way first (I use these things myself, and build 'em like I LIKE 'em.
)
(Glad you liked the "candy apple red" too! See? How many agreed with you on that? So whatever I do, I know I won't please everyone.)
Keep the opinions coming though. I'm listening (if not scrambling to obey ). You know, I obviously like these "hyper-real" GUIs, but the other half of me just wants to make it out of standard Windows dialog controls. Careful you don't convince me too much or it may be nothing but bevelled gray buttons and sliders, forever!
And like I said, it's not hopeless for your cause, but we're going to market with this guy... er, gal. Soon!
No cost yet Pinbot, but we're committed to keeping it affordable (so people have some money left over to spend on new screens and CPUs!
)
So, sorry, but minimum target system is greater than 1024x768 (though you should still be able to run at 1024 with very little difficulty.)
One of the products that I consider among the closest competition to this one happens to be (approx.) 1012 pixels wide. (Not mentioning any names. I'll leave the direct comparisons up to you folks -- once there's actually something to compare!)
Did a survey before starting and trust me, it's going to occupy exactly the niche we want it to. i.e. HIGH END. (You think it won't fit on your screen? Just wait'll you see how much CPU it uses! hhahahaa
)So, hang in there. And, really Roger, if my GUI philosophy is killing this product, I'll notice and be compelled to respond. So if you're right you'll get your version eventually. But we're trying it my way first (I use these things myself, and build 'em like I LIKE 'em.
)(Glad you liked the "candy apple red" too! See? How many agreed with you on that? So whatever I do, I know I won't please everyone.)
Keep the opinions coming though. I'm listening (if not scrambling to obey
). You know, I obviously like these "hyper-real" GUIs, but the other half of me just wants to make it out of standard Windows dialog controls. Careful you don't convince me too much or it may be nothing but bevelled gray buttons and sliders, forever!And like I said, it's not hopeless for your cause, but we're going to market with this guy... er, gal. Soon!
No cost yet Pinbot, but we're committed to keeping it affordable (so people have some money left over to spend on new screens and CPUs!
)
Last edited by AdmiralQuality on Fri Apr 21, 2006 8:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- KVRAF
- 5818 posts since 9 Jul, 2002 from Helsinki
Cool looks, but the gui is too big.
(just repeating in case you missed it first time)
and btw the GUI is too BIG.
P.S. Interesting synth, but the GUI is way too big.
br,
.jon
(just repeating in case you missed it first time)
and btw the GUI is too BIG.
P.S. Interesting synth, but the GUI is way too big.
br,
.jon
-
AdmiralQuality AdmiralQuality https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=83902
- Banned
- Topic Starter
- 6657 posts since 10 Oct, 2005 from Toronto, Canada
-
- KVRAF
- 1949 posts since 21 Mar, 2003 from Labrador
Large flat deck trucks with huge industrial genrators are now standing by for product release day!AdmiralQuality wrote:
Did a survey before starting and trust me, it's going to occupy exactly the niche we want it to. i.e. HIGH END. (You think it won't fit on your screen? Just wait'll you see how much CPU it uses! hhahahaa
-
- KVRAF
- 2028 posts since 18 Mar, 2004 from New York, N.Y.
As a programmer who also designs, and works with other designers and programmers, I get into the battle of form vs. functionality every day.
Functionality always wins.
But it's not quite that crystal clear...there has to be a good balance. I thought that all of my clients web visitors would have Flash (in a survey, all users had Flash). Once the site went live, hundreds of complaints started coming in that they could not navigate the site.
I also know a developer (who I will not name), who refuses to put ANY time into good-looking GUI's. He can't relate to those potential customers he's losing himself, so he'll be happy to only have 20% of the customers that he could have otherwise.
That's why the most successful software either has a good developer who knows the right balance, or a separate dev and designer so that their software will be the product of people who have expertise in both areas.
In summary: I think you're making a big mistake by bouncing off criticisms this early on. So, if the software does not work well on my system later on, will I be in the "target" group that you care about?
Functionality always wins.
But it's not quite that crystal clear...there has to be a good balance. I thought that all of my clients web visitors would have Flash (in a survey, all users had Flash). Once the site went live, hundreds of complaints started coming in that they could not navigate the site.
I also know a developer (who I will not name), who refuses to put ANY time into good-looking GUI's. He can't relate to those potential customers he's losing himself, so he'll be happy to only have 20% of the customers that he could have otherwise.
That's why the most successful software either has a good developer who knows the right balance, or a separate dev and designer so that their software will be the product of people who have expertise in both areas.
In summary: I think you're making a big mistake by bouncing off criticisms this early on. So, if the software does not work well on my system later on, will I be in the "target" group that you care about?
-
- KVRAF
- 18565 posts since 16 Sep, 2001 from Las Vegas,USA
I'm a HUGE fan of Retro Hardware Gui's. This one's going to strain the old eyes I'm afraid. The backwards tilt is not my favorite either but hey it's your synth, do as you wish. If it has a demo version then people can try it out and decide for themselves. For me so far it's up to the sound and price. If it sounds good and has a reasonable price then I'll put up with having my nose up against the monitor glass. 
None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
-
- KVRAF
- 2028 posts since 18 Mar, 2004 from New York, N.Y.
Here's some useful statistics on what resolutions people are using:
Taken from: http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2005/April/res.php
1024x768 143787653 (56%)
800x600 75356279 (29%)
1280x1024 22007188 (8%)
1152x864 7981809 (3%)
Unknown 4399143 (1%)
640x480 1852239 (0%)
1600x1200 1330362 (0%)
(Note that the two at 0% are rounded down, they are actually a fraction of one percent)
Edit:
This thread inspired me to kick up my res to 1280 X 1024. I'm trying it for a few days. My first impression is that while the extra screen real estate IS nice, I do find that my eyes become noticeably more fatigued after hours of working. I'm on a 21" Trinitron, very nice monitor.
I've also noticed that higher resolutions work better on Macs, I believe that the OS was designed for higher resolutions in mind, so the default font sizes and gamma make up for the resolution....
Taken from: http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2005/April/res.php
1024x768 143787653 (56%)
800x600 75356279 (29%)
1280x1024 22007188 (8%)
1152x864 7981809 (3%)
Unknown 4399143 (1%)
640x480 1852239 (0%)
1600x1200 1330362 (0%)
(Note that the two at 0% are rounded down, they are actually a fraction of one percent)
Edit:
This thread inspired me to kick up my res to 1280 X 1024. I'm trying it for a few days. My first impression is that while the extra screen real estate IS nice, I do find that my eyes become noticeably more fatigued after hours of working. I'm on a 21" Trinitron, very nice monitor.
I've also noticed that higher resolutions work better on Macs, I believe that the OS was designed for higher resolutions in mind, so the default font sizes and gamma make up for the resolution....
-
ChocoLatteRabbit ChocoLatteRabbit https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=98806
- KVRist
- 97 posts since 19 Feb, 2006 from An icon on my desktoop
OH, WAY TO GO, JPLANET, TURN THIS INTO A "MAC IS BEAUTIFUL" THING!!
Just kidding. I'm win98se with a 21" monitor set at 1024x768. AQ has been trying to convince me that I'm so 1993, but it looks like I'm so 2006, instead. So take that, AQ,
It looks like you've narrowed yourself down to about 8% of the marketplace. Knock yourself out, Man.
Just kidding. I'm win98se with a 21" monitor set at 1024x768. AQ has been trying to convince me that I'm so 1993, but it looks like I'm so 2006, instead. So take that, AQ,
It looks like you've narrowed yourself down to about 8% of the marketplace. Knock yourself out, Man. ChocoLatteRabbit
"They often calls me coffee 'cause I grinds so fine."
Unknown bluesman
"They often calls me coffee 'cause I grinds so fine."
Unknown bluesman
-
- KVRAF
- 2028 posts since 18 Mar, 2004 from New York, N.Y.
LOL, I know you kid, but I didn't mean to sound pro-Mac...I'm on a PC, and I always have to see stuff that Mac designers created that looks to dark, or too big, on my PC...I just wish both platforms looked the same...ChocoLatteRabbit wrote:OH, WAY TO GO, JPLANET, TURN THIS INTO A "MAC IS BEAUTIFUL" THING!!
Just kidding...
Also, I made a mistake, my post shows the stats from last year. STill weighs heavily for 1024X768, though:
http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2006/April/res.php
1024x768 76904143 (61%)
800x600 20859784 (16%)
1280x1024 18199940 (14%)
1152x864 4692227 (3%)
Unknown 3299544 (2%)
1600x1200 663763 (0%)
640x480 343605 (0%)
-
- KVRAF
- 3517 posts since 18 Apr, 2002 from British Columbia, Canada
mac runs at 96dpi, i think.. while pc runs at 72dpi.
er, what i mean is, when i am working on the G5, standard moniter dpi is 96; likewise on my PC, it's 72.
er, what i mean is, when i am working on the G5, standard moniter dpi is 96; likewise on my PC, it's 72.
-
- KVRAF
- 3617 posts since 26 Sep, 2003 from Bradford - The Armpit of Britain
Guess i'll chime in also.
I liked the look of the blue skin, there is a certain beauty there - but it's more like a beautiful picture, with likely legibility problems on some of the knobs & screen real estate wasteage (imo).
I also run 1024x768 (as do most people I come into regular contact with) on twin 19 inch monitors, as I use reason & still actually use rebirth it becomes somewhat finnicky at a higher resolution (rebirth is finicky even at 1024x786 - but that's another story).
Personally i've tried higher screen resolution & found them uncomfortable/fatiguing over long periods of time, but that's me personally - although I find the posted stats interesting.
Personally I believe you may be making a mistake by sticking to your guns over the resolution issue & I reckon you've been given good advice about those fewkin huge silver rotary selectors that appear to take up 1/3 to 1/2 of the screen, yet will still likely be all but unreadable for many.
How many will realistically change screen settings that they are comfortable in order to accomodate one synth, which you've also intimated could be something of a cpu muncher (another potential issue for me personally).
I've tried the images at a few different resolutions & basically I wouldn't like trying to use it - straight up honest opinion - i've got 20/20 vision & I have my nose on the screen attempting to read those huge bloody silver rotaries with how many? options/destinations on them
Good luck anyways, but I can see a potential own goal or two here.
I liked the look of the blue skin, there is a certain beauty there - but it's more like a beautiful picture, with likely legibility problems on some of the knobs & screen real estate wasteage (imo).
I also run 1024x768 (as do most people I come into regular contact with) on twin 19 inch monitors, as I use reason & still actually use rebirth it becomes somewhat finnicky at a higher resolution (rebirth is finicky even at 1024x786 - but that's another story).
Personally i've tried higher screen resolution & found them uncomfortable/fatiguing over long periods of time, but that's me personally - although I find the posted stats interesting.
Personally I believe you may be making a mistake by sticking to your guns over the resolution issue & I reckon you've been given good advice about those fewkin huge silver rotary selectors that appear to take up 1/3 to 1/2 of the screen, yet will still likely be all but unreadable for many.
How many will realistically change screen settings that they are comfortable in order to accomodate one synth, which you've also intimated could be something of a cpu muncher (another potential issue for me personally).
I've tried the images at a few different resolutions & basically I wouldn't like trying to use it - straight up honest opinion - i've got 20/20 vision & I have my nose on the screen attempting to read those huge bloody silver rotaries with how many? options/destinations on them
Good luck anyways, but I can see a potential own goal or two here.
-
- KVRAF
- 5818 posts since 9 Jul, 2002 from Helsinki
other way around... or at least used to be. Most Macs are also 96dpi nowadays. I think 72dpi is only used in video production anymore.Z3R0T0N1N wrote:mac runs at 96dpi, i think.. while pc runs at 72dpi.
er, what i mean is, when i am working on the G5, standard moniter dpi is 96; likewise on my PC, it's 72.
