Cliff, Get rid of the older firmware modeling options to free up space!!

Older firmware modeling option

  • Remove it. I can live without it.

    Votes: 398 94.3%
  • Leave it. I have to have it.

    Votes: 24 5.7%

  • Total voters
    422
Status
Not open for further replies.
There's a reason workarounds are implemented. A workaround is simply a method for circumventing a problem, so the inherent implication is that there was a problem. Thus removing the workaround reintroduces the problem.

Have to respectfully disagree with you on this one.

The rollback feature was not implemented to circumvent a problem. There was never any problem with the new modelling updates. A minority (according to the survey numbers) of the user base wanted the ability to easily rollback because they felt their presets sounded better with a previous version. That to me is not a problem, it just required an adjustment period. Which could have been accomplished by re-installing a previous firmware version.
 
It wasn't a problem. It was a workaround for a few people who updated the firmware and weren't happy that they had to change settings.

By definition, a workaround is a method to circumvent a problem. If you're going to label the (whatever you want to call it) as a workaround then you're inherently suggesting there was a problem. In my opinion, the need to potentially modify presets created with an earlier firmware after every new update in order to retain their sound is a problem.
 
Last edited:
Have to respectfully disagree with you on this one.

The rollback feature was not implemented to circumvent a problem. There was never any problem with the new modelling updates. A minority (according to the survey numbers) of the user base wanted the ability to easily rollback because they felt their presets sounded better with a previous version. That to me is not a problem, it just required an adjustment period. Which could have been accomplished by re-installing a previous firmware version.

As mentioned above, a workaround is, by definition, a method to circumvent a problem. If you use the term then you're implying there was a problem. Otherwise it's something other than a workaround.
 
Last edited:
The speculation here is pretty wild. And the panic probably devalued the Mk1/2 by $500 already. lol.
FAS goes way out of their/his way to accommodate the craziest wishlists...and then we throw tantrums.
The only time I touch the version knob is to make sure it's on 'LATEST' .. so I'd gladly give it up. Those that are willing to fork-off us Luddites with MK1/2 ..just to keep that button...well...I don't agree.
That said, it seems clear that the train will end for us soon enough.

Again, thank you Cliff. You've totally changed the way I experience playing guitar. Please don't let this hollering piss you off.
 
Cliff has stated that he didn't think things would be changing too much from Quantum 2.0 onward:

Post #151: "I don' t think things will be changing too much from here out. The new equations are based on actual tube curves rather than theoretical equations. I don't think we can get any more accurate than that."

Phrases like this we heard since ... f.ex. introducing Axe II, FW10 (MIMIC), FW18 (G3), Quantum .... just saying ;)
 
The only time I touch the version knob is to make sure it's on 'LATEST' .. so I'd gladly give it up. Those that are willing to fork-off us Luddites with MK1/2 ..just to keep that button...well...I don't agree.

I never touch the Depth Freq knob in the power amp section of the amp block either, but that doesn't mean others don't.
 
I never touch the Depth Freq knob in the power amp section of the amp block either, but that doesn't mean others don't.
In fairness..was the Depth knob a consolation to folks that opined that their presets changed with an update?

I see your point...but you should consider ours. If you are happy with your sound and don't trust that it will improve with forward moves...then why would you even bother with updates? Again, it seems likely that the MK1/2 are on borrowed time..but if that ONE 'feature' (and in my opinion its a consolation, not a feature) buys us some time... I'd like to continue to ride. It seems clear that you don't care about us ...and that's fair enough.
 
In fairness..was the Depth knob a consolation to folks that opined that their presets changed with an update?

No, and that's the point. How many users asked for a depth freq knob compared to those who asked for a way to retain the sound of their presets?

If you are happy with your sound and don't trust that it will improve with forward moves...then why would you even bother with updates?

Updates provide more than just modeling improvements(eg. new amps), and I'm certainly not opposed to accepting whatever incremental modeling improvements are on offer. That said, there were obviously enough people who requested forward preset compatibility for Cliff to bother implementing it.

Again, it seems likely that the MK1/2 are on borrowed time..but if that ONE 'feature' (and in my opinion its a consolation, not a feature) buys us some time... I'd like to continue to ride. It seems clear that you don't care about us ...and that's fair enough.

If you truly believe that then you haven't read my previous comments. I've stated that I think such a trade-off would be worth it if it resulted in numerous (20 or more) additional updates rather than a very limited upgrade path.
 
Last edited:
I'm an Axe2 gen1 user. Got it on firm 8 and have updated to every firmware release until now.
I voted for removing the older modelling option to allow for some extra updates but I could live with the unit as it is now.
Getting an XL is probably overkill for my own needs but so will be the AXEIII when it is released.
I would perfectly understand Fractal decision if this was the last update for gen1 units, it is a mature product and it is probably holding the developpment of the newer units.
 
If you truly believe that then you haven't read my previous comments. I've stated that I think such a trade-off would be worth it if it resulted in numerous (20 or more) additional updates rather than a very limited upgrade path.

Yeah, I missed that statement.
If the situation were reversed, I would like to think that I would support the path that didn't segment the community. The folks here who provide presets and insight are a large part of the value in Axe-Fx. When a large portion are cut off from updating, everyone will feel the void.

Ultimately, the bickering doesn't serve any of us...and surely makes Cliff want to choke us to death. I'll shut up on this and hope in silence.
 
Yeah, I missed that statement.
If the situation were reversed, I would like to think that I would support the path that didn't segment the community. The folks here who provide presets and insight are a large part of the value in Axe-Fx. When a large portion are cut off from updating, everyone will feel the void.

I see a lot of value in this forum extraneous to the periodic upgrades. I'd continue to visit and contribute to this forum even if updates for the XL+ stopped tomorrow.
 
Mk II user here that voted to drop the FW rollback option.

I posted an idea on the FW Beta 4.01 thread. This would require presumably a lot of rewriting of the code but would free up some space (eventually the XLs will hit capacity too):

Would it be possible to make it so that we would download the FW to the computer and using Fractal Bot (or Axe Edit), the FW would load in only the definitions of all the blocks, then based on your capacity, you could load in what you want (or opt out of certain things)?

For example, out of the 43 currently available reverbs, I could get by with loading two. Amp blocks? I certainly don't need all 152 on board to do a gig or a session. IRs take up space - I don't need all Cabs on board simultaneously. Synth, Vocoder, etc, I could opt out of entirely. If I ever need the synth and I'm at capacity - sacrifice one or two items and load a synth. (perhaps an audition method could be built into Axe Edit - like we have now for Cabs)

Maybe the FW in its entirety would live only on our computers and we load into the Axe FX what we need for the gig/tour/session.

I love having a massive library of choices, but I could live without having them on board at all times if that would give us the ability to have a few more firmware updates.
 
Mk II user here that voted to drop the FW rollback option.

I posted an idea on the FW Beta 4.01 thread. This would require presumably a lot of rewriting of the code but would free up some space (eventually the XLs will hit capacity too):

Would it be possible to make it so that we would download the FW to the computer and using Fractal Bot (or Axe Edit), the FW would load in only the definitions of all the blocks, then based on your capacity, you could load in what you want (or opt out of certain things)?

Surely that would expose too much of the IP. Not realistic to expect that kind of effort and maintenance from the engineers either. Neat idea though.
 
A minority (according to the survey numbers) of the user base wanted the ability to easily rollback because they felt their presets sounded better with a previous version.

Some users use their Axe FXs daily and have a number of presets. Those presets require tweaking. Some sound outright better with updates, some are a bit off. When I tweak my presets, I try to do it in the context of a band mix. That takes time and iterations, I can't just spend an hour tweaking while others sit and wait. So with this options, I can do them one by one, and it makes the decision to upgrade much easier, which is good.
 
That said, I could probably live without the feature just out of sympathy for others, even though it would make things a bit less convenient.

However, the question I have is this - since Cliff mentioned that the boot ROM size on MI/MII has been an issue for a while now, and the guys at Fractal have been struggling to fit firmware on those smaller chips - is this modeling switch really the only thing that has to be sacrificed? Are we sure that there aren't other wish list items that are held back for the sake of backwards compatibility? Or more complex and better modeling algorithms? Or something else we haven't thought about?

Cause, you know, living without one switch for the sake of humanity is one thing, but giving up lots of potential improvements is another. We only discuss this because of a passing mention, almost a slip of a tongue. There may be other things nobody ever mentioned.
 
@Jason Scott , you keep talking about the modeling, but what about new drive pedals, FX blocks and such? Yes the modeling is amazing right now, but if there's new blocks and fx, all Mk1 and 2 users will be penalized because of a couple people still using the rollback feature.

I have an Axe FX 2 Mk2. You have an XL. Both are Axe FX NUMBER TWO. Same device with a couple upgrades, not 2 different devices. I paid to have the Axe FX NUMBER TWO support and firmwares.

Back when I bought it, the XL didn't exist. I understand if we would be talking about Axe FX 3, but no we're not. It's basically the same beast, so we should get the same software.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom