IMO, IF each unit could use the same architecture (cpu, memory, etc), then it could be designed with one framework, with the differences being the connectivity, footswitches, etc, between the units. That might require different hardware cooling for the FMx units and more. The big difference is that the FM3 and FM9 costs go up and thus the price to the consumer. That might be a deterrent, but it would sure make life easier for the dev teams.
No denying that using similar hardware for all the devices would make updates simpler and maybe faster but as you pointed out this could increase prices for the FM9 and FM3. I think this is the strategy Line 6 used with the HX devices to some extent, although even those devices sometimes see a delay between, for example a Helix update and an HX Stomp.
Might Fractal be taking advantage of some kind of middleware code (not sure if that is the precisely appropriate term) that only has to be written once and perhaps modified on occasion, that allows higher level code and the editor to stay fairly consistent between devices? The middleware takes care of talking to lower-level OS and hardware calls/functions that may differ between the devices. That sort of middle layer can probably expedite a lot of update changes. Perhaps it might require some tweaking for something like gapless switching where they possibly need to find new efficiencies or methods closer to the hardware layer as the FM9 and FM3 have less processing power.
I'm perfectly content to wait as code gets rolled out to the AFX3 first and then rolls down to the FM9. Means I have to wait longer for new features, but I also get the entire AFX3 community as my beta testers to some extent . Not 100% as some bugs will only show on the FM9, but I assume many issues have been resolved by the time the FM9 gets the update.
Last edited: