(implemented) Eliminate gap when using the same amp block across different channels.

Status
Not open for further replies.
rcm78 said:
What if it leaked that Cliff had am FM9 with full AxeFX functionality and gapless channel switching?
Click to expand...
For what possible reason would he do that and not immediately market it? He could, and would, destroy the competition with a device like that. Fractal is a small company fighting against much bigger competitors. They would be stupid to ignore an opportunity like that.

Or do you think he is in cahoots with his competitors to fix prices or slow progress? I see no way that question makes sense.
 
rcm78 said:
It’s reasonable to have features and functionality banked for future firmware updates. You don’t think this stuff is developed and released in real time do you?
Click to expand...
It’s absolutely not banked waiting for some magical release time.

As someone who has had insight into the development process, not at Fractal, but in many other companies I worked for because I was designing and developing the software, I can unequivocally say that statement is ridiculous. It’s definitely released as the software proves to be stable enough to be in production. It’s called “a competitive edge.”

Imagine how badly “banking” a technology would fail if a competitor released their product to market first. Even if theirs was not as good it STILL was first to market and in the public’s eye it is the real, true, implementation and everyone after that is chasing them. Perception is very important.
 
What would be cool is if we kept this on topic and added to the discussion rather than looking for the bones to argue over.

If the request has been rehashed too many times for some people the beautiful thing is you can choose to move on to something else :)
 
Greg Ferguson said:
It’s absolutely not banked waiting for some magical release time.

As someone who has had insight into the development process, not at Fractal, but in many other companies I worked for because I was designing and developing the software, I can unequivocally say that statement is ridiculous. It’s definitely released as the software proves to be stable enough to be in production. It’s called “a competitive edge.”

Imagine how badly “banking” a technology would fail if a competitor released their product to market first. Even if theirs was not as good it STILL was first to market and in the public’s eye it is the real, true, implementation and everyone after that is chasing them. Perception is very important.
Click to expand...

That's not entirely true, Greg. I work in the IT industry and the company I work for actually does stage the release of features to achieve a maybe flatter but longer revenue stream to fund the project. It might be an exception to the rule compared to the rest of the industry, though. That I don't know.
 
ChristThePhone said:
That's not entirely true, Greg. I work in the IT industry and the company I work for actually does stage the release of features to achieve a maybe flatter but longer revenue stream to fund the project. It might be an exception to the rule compared to the rest of the industry, though. That I don't know.
Click to expand...
That’s definitely different than any group I worked in. You must have no competition in your field.
 
Greg Ferguson said:
That’s definitely different than any group I worked in. You must have no competition in your field.
Click to expand...

No direct competitor, it's a high-value niche market. One might argue FAS occupies a similar spot but then they don't sell firmware updates that would add features. So if anything is missing but technically possible then this is pretty sure a business decision not to provide it (e.g. an incentive to buy the AxeFx3).
 
ChristThePhone said:
One might argue FAS occupies a similar spot
Click to expand...
In our eyes, yes, but the eyes of the average Guitar Center and Sam Ash customer see it differently, because they are enticed by flashy advertising by Fractal’s modeling competition who have much deeper pockets and spend a lot of their money to try to attract the masses instead of spending it on R&D like Cliff does.

I suspect that if there was a way to get an accurate survey of Fractal’s actual customers, we’d see that the majority bounced off at least one of the competitors, and most likely had experienced a couple of them.

This could have been about Fractal …
 
Greg Ferguson said:
It’s absolutely not banked waiting for some magical release time.

As someone who has had insight into the development process, not at Fractal, but in many other companies I worked for because I was designing and developing the software, I can unequivocally say that statement is ridiculous. It’s definitely released as the software proves to be stable enough to be in production. It’s called “a competitive edge.”

Imagine how badly “banking” a technology would fail if a competitor released their product to market first. Even if theirs was not as good it STILL was first to market and in the public’s eye it is the real, true, implementation and everyone after that is chasing them. Perception is very important.
Click to expand...
It's not ridiculous. You even proved my point by saying until it's proven stable for production... I'm not criticizing Fractal here. As you know and already stated this is what's done in development...
 
Last edited:
Greg Ferguson said:
For what possible reason would he do that and not immediately market it? He could, and would, destroy the competition with a device like that. Fractal is a small company fighting against much bigger competitors. They would be stupid to ignore an opportunity like that.

Or do you think he is in cahoots with his competitors to fix prices or slow progress? I see no way that question makes sense.
Click to expand...
That's a hell of an accusation there Greg. I'm not sure Cliff would appreciate it.

My "Opinion" here is that it's not in Fractals best interest to compete against themselves therefore the differences in block availability and functionality across the devices. The Axe III must remain the flagship.
 
Smilzo said:
It's not a gain problem; Cliff explained the models need iteraction to achieve stationariety. They have virtual cap and resistor. They need time to reach proper condition/value. You may have notice some (real) amps have a "bump" when changing channel for the first time: is the eletrical charge/discharge in electric circuit (capacitor in primis). The gain knob have a capacitor. If you suddenly change the gain pot value, the virtual cap should react as a cap (charge or discharge, it depends on the circuit). This is only one of the many caps inside an amp...
Click to expand...
Sure that's why actual circuits pop but this is a modeler. Also, why is it possible to switch from one amp to another with zero gap as long as they're on the same channel?
 
NattyBar said:
What would be cool is if we kept this on topic and added to the discussion rather than looking for the bones to argue over.

If the request has been rehashed too many times for some people the beautiful thing is you can choose to move on to something else :)
Click to expand...
That's what certain people do here. It's always the same "that's not possible" people...
 
rcm78 said:
That's a hell of an accusation there Greg. I'm not sure Cliff would appreciate it.

My "Opinion" here is that it's not in Fractals best interest to compete against themselves therefore the differences in block availability and functionality across the devices. The Axe III must remain the flagship.
Click to expand...
There's no accusation at all, and I'm sure Cliff would love to have an FM9 that ran as fast as the FX3 with the same capacity, because, at that point he'd have an FX3 that ran twice as fast with twice the capacity. The FX3 will remain the flagship because it has the capacity to do more and will remain positioned in that spot, the FM9 is positioned as the mid-tier product, and that's not going to change.
 
rcm78 said:
It's not ridiculous. You even proved my point by saying until it's proven stable for production... I'm not criticizing Fractal here. As you know and already stated this is what's done in development...
Click to expand...
The comments you have been making lead me to believe you think that Cliff could have an FM9 that has all of the Axe III's functionality and could release it but chooses not to. If you're meaning that he may have one he's developing, that's completely different and a clarification like that would solve a lot of the misunderstanding here.

rcm78 said:
My "Opinion" here is that it's not in Fractals best interest to compete against themselves therefore the differences in block availability and functionality across the devices. The Axe III must remain the flagship.
Click to expand...
You are absolutely entitled to your opinion. However, people like Greg have a bit more knowledge of how FAS works so his opinion has more credibility IMO.

True, each device is geared to a different market and as such have different processors and memory capabilities that dictate what can and can't be done with each device. To have an opinion that Fractal purposely keeps features out of reach on the FM3 and FM9 is simply unsubstantiated.

If you followed the release of the FM3 and FM9, you would know that Cliff packed everything he could into them. He even considered two amp blocks for the FM3 but discovered it would reduce the quality of the tone too much. How the devices sound is much more important to him than functionality or features.

Everything I've read that has been posted by Cliff, as well as other developers, has shown time and time again that they are committed to getting the most out of each platform. Going back to the launch of the Axe III and the Ares modeling platform. Fractal had zero obligation to port any of Ares to the Axe II or AX8 but they did. People wanted and expected more, but it either wasn't possible or would likely require taking more resources away from developing the Axe III which is an unreasonable expectation of any business.
 
Last edited:
Greg Ferguson said:
There's no accusation at all, and I'm sure Cliff would love to have an FM9 that ran as fast as the FX3 with the same capacity, because, at that point he'd have an FX3 that ran twice as fast with twice the capacity. The FX3 will remain the flagship because it has the capacity to do more and will remain positioned in that spot, the FM9 is positioned as the mid-tier product, and that's not going to change.
Click to expand...
Finally, We agree. The products are tiered.
Unless you work at Fractal and have first hand knowledge you really don't know the total capability of anything Fractal builds. They are obviously capable of more than what they do at this very minute. Otherwise updates would not be possible...
 
JoKeR III said:
The comments you have been making lead me to believe you think that Cliff could have an FM9 that has all of the Axe III's functionality and could release it but chooses not to. If you're meaning that he may have one he's developing, that's completely different and a clarification like that would solve a lot of the misunderstanding here.


You are absolutely entitled to your opinion. However, people like Greg have a bit more knowledge of how FAS works so his opinion has more credibility IMO.

True, each device is geared to a different market and as such have different processors and memory capabilities that dictate what can and can't be done with each device. To have an opinion that Fractal purposely keeps features out of reach on the FM3 and FM9 is simply unsubstantiated.

If you followed the release of the FM3 and FM9, you would know that Cliff packed everything he could into them. He even considered two amp blocks for the FM3 but discovered it would reduce the quality of the tone too much. How the devices sound is much more important to him than functionality or features.

Everything I've read that has been posted by Cliff, as well as other developers, has shown time and time again that they are committed to getting the most out of each platform. Going back to the launch of the Axe III and the Ares modeling platform. Fractal had zero obligation to port any of Ares to the Axe II or AX8 but they did. People wanted and expected more, but it either wasn't possible or would likely require taking more resources away from developing the Axe III which is an unreasonable expectation of any business.
Click to expand...
If my comments lead you to believe anything, that's on you not me...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom