Axe FX II and feature creep

Zwiebelchen

Zwiebelchen

Fractal Fanatic
As the first line in this thread, I just want to say that this thread is not intended to be understood as criticism, but more as a platform to discuss an issue that is very present in modern (modelling) technology, which is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feature_creep

"Feature creep, creeping featurism or featuritis is the ongoing expansion or addition of new features in a product, such as in computer software. Extra features go beyond the basic function of the product and so can result in over-complication rather than simple design. Viewed over a longer time period, extra or unnecessary features seem to creep into the system, beyond the initial goals."


The reason I'm bringing this topic up now was the recent discussion, initiated by Cliff about removing some of the advanced parameters of the Amp block, which was turned down by popular demand: http://forum.fractalaudio.com/axe-fx-ii-discussion/82399-parameter-elimination.html


Do you guys think the Axe II firmwares start to drift more and more into feature creep? If we consider the history of improvements over the last 10 firmwares, there was a lot of stuff that got added far beyond the initial features of the Axe II:
Scenes and Scene controllers, a lot more amp advanced parameters and literally hundreds of new amp models. Recently, Fractal tried to tackle that "amp in the room" issue with the new ultra-res IR format, just to introduce a new problem that comes with it: it requires modified IRs.

To me, I feel that with the addition of more and more parameters inside the amp block and more and more amp models being added, I think we are moving towards a certain redundancy of design. Is it just me, or is it time to watch everything as a whole and try to eliminate stuff that has been rendered unneccessary by the progress that has been made?
There's now a lot of amp models that sound very similar to me. There's the option to change the virtual tubes of amps, there's all that advanced parameters that I don't even know what they are doing. Then there's all the reverb models that I never use anymore since the studio reverb got introduced.


While most of this stuff is perfectly optional for those who need it, I feel there's also a rising number of people that get confused by all the possibilities. There's more and more posts in the bug reports forums popping up that can be tracked down to be a mere user-error. But the thing is: it gets more and more complicated to help to track down the cause of user issues.
The most prominent examples here are issues with volume jumps. There's so much stuff that can be wrong here, that affects the volume of a patch:
it could be the output volume knob, it could be the level of the amp block, input trim, global amp gain, it could be a controller or modifier, it could be erratic midi data, it could be the scene output level, it could be the global output level, it could be wrong I/O settings, it could be the noise gate, routing, etc..

I often find myself recreating my presets from scratch after tweaking, tweaking and tweaking, simply because I lost track of all the modifications I did burried within the menues. This helps a lot, but I could imagine not everyone having the nerves to do that on a regular basis.


So, to come back to the initial statement: do you think the Axe II starts to suffer from this effect or do you think ultimate flexibility is the right track to go?


EDIT: And I shall be corrected. What I described is not "feature creep", but actually "worse is better", from a programming perspective.
 
Last edited:
You referred to a thread that Cliff put up. He's constantly thinking about this unit and how to make it better and change things around. He doesn't do that because he has to, he does that because he's a perfectionist and simply can't help it. I'm happy, therefore, to leave it in his hands
thumbsup.gif


I get what you're saying about so many options and how they can be confusing and the wood gets lost in the trees etc - but I think most would rather have the choices and not touch them, rather than not have them there at all. Seems odd I know, but there it is. There's also an old adage along the lines of, "Give people too much choice and they'll never be happy" - there's something in that too of course, but we are dealing with a very clever, versatile box here that delivers way more than most people need.

My view on that is that I'll pick and choose what I need to get things working for me, but beyond that, all the additional stuff can just sit there until such time that I may want to play with it
 
I can appreciate the thought into this. For whatever reason, probably because of that other thread you mentioned, I could see a lot of naysayers. I like the idea of simplicity and less is more with guitar stuff to an extent. The way I see it the current way is the only way to improve the product with user feedback.

However, other versions or modes could be introduced. For instance booting the axe in basic mode vs advanced mode or something like that. Where you have limited editing parameters. Another option that I think lots of people would still like to see is the floor version and of course some type of AMPs/Cabs only axe fx unit.

It is definitely a complex unit to wrap your head around and I'm glad I spent the time to learn it. I've also learned so much about tone, effects, routing etc...all because of using the axe fx Ultra and II.

MY .02.
 
The problem is, when removing functionality users do not like it, not just with the Axe but any software. This is even if the perceived loss is not justified, for that reason where I work we have to support ridiculous features that 99% of users don't want or use.

IMO, with the old Axe FX the adv. parameters were needed to try and make up for the shortcomings of the amp modelling, now however I NEVER go into the the advanced amp settings. The glorious tone from 13.07 and the basic controls is all I ever need. I don't have a problem with them being there though, you don't have to use the adv. menu if you don;t want to.
 
Its like your saying no more innovation please. I say more innovation please. Don't stop, and let me know when your done, so I can jump on the next band wagon. I have another 40 + yrs max left on this earth, I want to enjoy it with the most advanced confusing wonderful device on this planet. Keeps me young. I'm 47 so the number above is subjective.
 
The good news on the AxeFX is that the basic controls that most will need are on the first few pages and the rest are under advanced or other pages depending on what they are. You could potentially have a global option to remove the advanced features so that you don't have to look at them but this is easily achievable by just not looking at them. I have a love/hate relationship with the advanced settings but if there were not there then I might just be missing that last little tweak that I need to get my perfect tone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ALE
Limit yourself to what you tweak and that problem is solved... then, practice. Let Fractal worry about feature creep, the ability to adjust a variety of features is a big part of why TOP MEN use it.
 
if it becomes a trade off where one feature has to go to make room for a better option ,sure! but features in general are a choice for the user , nothing should be removed because it becomes overwhelming for a user ! The fact is no one has to use the features they don't understand or need, but others have the option if they need them !
 
For me and for what I do, I find myself using less and less parameters as the firmware has progressed.

It gets easier to get the tones I need and use.

So in that sense, I'm satisfied and the new additions are not something I worry about.

UR in and of itself, I can't say if it was a game changer for me. TAF IR's... those have upped the ante. Pair a TAF IR with a Fractal amp model... it's hard to imagine it will get any easier than that. But it probably will :)
 
There is no spoon. The Axe-FX II is perhaps the most sophisticated, powerful and expansive guitar processor ever built. Yet, if you want simple presets... you can build them that way and utilize the box in any manner you see fit in a huge array of different applications and rig setups.

What you might deem unnecessary feature creep might be exceptionally necessary to another to achieve their goals. There are loads and loads of parameters I never touch today; but yesterday or tomorrow they might be essential tools I find important.

Instead of viewing parameters as obstructions; instead view it as a music store and studio in a box. Take what you need, learn them and use them. Need something else, go get it... it's probably in there. Don't need something? Leave it at default and ignore it.
 
Feature creep, agony of choice, option anxiety ... ;)

It's not the amount of parameters, it's being to able to see and access them.

People think of Macs being easier than Windows PCs, partly because there are less configuration opties.
Well, the Mac has those too but you can't see them.

Some people want easier effect blocks, like 3 virtual knobs. Others have a thread going, wishing far more advanced effect options.
Can't please them all. Except by changing the way things are presented.

I've proposed it before and will do it again: I'd love to see an EASY MODE skin added to Axe-Edit.

As well as something similar for the hardware. It'd make troubleshooting much easier.
 
I don't see any harm having advanced features available for those that want them.
I think it should be up to FAS to remove features based on whatever reason they might have. (Easier support etc)
It's not feature creep unless FAS find it so.
For users who can't help touching advanced parameters even though they don't know what they're doing and then complain about complexity: Please, how hard can it be to stay away from the advanced menus? Just don't go there, or if you just can not help it, get something else. The axe is an advanced piece of gear, that is one reason it's so good compared to the competition. You can get any tone you can imagine out of it. Take away that and it's not so far ahead anymore. Simple as that...
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ALE
To literally give my opinion, I'd have to say, yes, the AxeFX suffers from all of the parameters but also excels because of it. I prefer more parameters over fewer even if they become redundant. For example, I never use the amp voicing b/c it's just eq and I'd rather set the graphic eq instead but others may use it as a convenience. So either way, you can't win. One group of users will love it and the other hate it b/c of the preset rework they'll need to do.

Maybe the best thing to do is to have a simplified interface that gives you basic controls (like the ones on real amps) and a more advanced interface that has everything else... but wait, that's kinda already there... The first page(s) of each block already have this. I think this is more of a user issue b/c the Axe is as simple or as complex as you make it. If you started out creating a preset and just used the controls that match the real controls on the amp you have in mind, it would be really simple... like 10 knobs at the most.

Maybe the solution is a hardware one like a foot pedal version with simple controls... or even an MFC like thing with knobs assigned to simple controls so that you can use that as your basic interface and only go to the Axe's front panel or AxeEdit for the advanced stuff. Who knows.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ALE
The complexity of the Axe is required for those that need to be creative. Building your tone can be a journey or a necessity to set your self apart from other musicians. Everyone here knows that before the Axe FX came along if you wanted to be different tone wise you needed a lot of gear or you went through a lot of gear looking for it.

Now days I have more time then money where as just a few years ago it was the complete opposite. With all the parameters, sims, EQ's, effects etc in the Axe I know if I want to I can tune in any tone I choses to. If all I needed or wanted was just one type of tone I would have kept my Lee Jackson XLS 1000 head and 412 cabs and effects and been good with all that weight and gear. So I say I would rather have all the parameters and not need them then not have them and wished I did (notice what I said here).

To have the ability is the bottom line even if it's redundant.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ALE
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom