Control Suggestion

Status
Not open for further replies.
atquinn said:
My point, made early on, is that you can already do exactly what you described on the FC using layouts. What is your objection to that?

Austin
Click to expand...

There are definitely workarounds that get a similar effect, but they arent exactly what Im describing or quite as effective. You would have to do separate layouts for lines 1&2, 2&3, 3&4 which would be using up the limited number of layouts you have and if you do the version that chris suggested, it wraps around so if you wanted to go from lines 1&2 to 3&4 and accidentally hit the button again, it would go back to 1&2 so youd have to cycle back which could throw things off in a live setting. Also being able to access the all of the looper functions, and effects on the fly would be much easier.

And finally, once again, it effectively doubles the number of layouts you have and its a software change vs. a physical hardware change. That alone should be enough of a positive to implement.
 
sirus1987 said:
There are definitely workarounds that get a similar effect, but they arent exactly what Im describing or quite as effective. You would have to do separate layouts for lines 1&2, 2&3, 3&4 which would be using up the limited number of layouts you have and if you do the version that chris suggested, it wraps around so if you wanted to go from lines 1&2 to 3&4 and accidentally hit the button again, it would go back to 1&2 so youd have to cycle back which could throw things off in a live setting. Also being able to access the all of the looper functions, and effects on the fly would be much easier.

And finally, once again, it effectively doubles the number of layouts you have and its a software change vs. a physical hardware change. That alone should be enough of a positive to implement.
Click to expand...

Using layouts does exactly what you describe (not a similar effect, it's exactly the same functionally). Using up available layouts is only an issue if you're going to do be doing something with them, which you haven't mentioned doing. And in that case, the solution would be increasing the maximum number of layouts available, not using a different paradigm that is less functional.

Not sure how the accessing looper functions on the fly comes into it as you can assign those buttons to any layout you want. Of course you can't have 12 buttons doing other things and looper functions (well, actually, you can, by using hold functions, but anyway...). That would require more buttons. But if you're not past that yet, then just spend twice as much for an RJM GT16 or three times as much for a GT22 and call it a day. RJM makes great stuff, but I'm sure you'd find something to complain about there too. :p

Austin
 
sirus1987 said:
You would have to do separate layouts for lines 1&2, 2&3, 3&4 which would be using up the limited number of layouts you have and if you do the version that chris suggested
Click to expand...
Yes. But you get the world you want without forcing the world you want on everyone else. That is ultimate flexibility.

sirus1987 said:
it wraps around so if you wanted to go from lines 1&2 to 3&4 and accidentally hit the button again, it would go back to 1&2 so youd have to cycle back which could throw things off in a live setting
Click to expand...
No. This could be done with or without wrapping.
sirus1987 said:
And finally, once again, it effectively doubles the number of layouts you have and its a software change vs. a physical hardware change. That alone should be enough of a positive to implement.
Click to expand...
It's only a positive feature to add if you think the approach is useful. And in that, I think you're in the minority.
 
iaresee said:
Yes. But you get the world you want without forcing the world you want on everyone else. That is ultimate flexibility.


No. This could be done with or without wrapping.

It's only a positive feature to add if you think the approach is useful. And in that, I think you're in the minority.
Click to expand...

That's great that you think I'm in the minority, despite theres no way for you to determine that or come to the conclusion.
 
sirus1987 said:
That's great that you think I'm in the minority, despite theres no way for you to determine that or come to the conclusion.
Click to expand...
probably the same way you determined "many" and "a lot"?

sirus1987 said:
echoed by many different people on this forum, facebook forums, and by friends. Some people are happy with the fact that they are smaller, many with myself included are not.
...

There are A LOT of people out there that like to have all their pedals and channel switching options right there in front of them...
Click to expand...


it seems this thread is being cleaned up. rightfully so. it's gone way off topic.

i appreciate your idea. my feedback and thoughts were presented in the form of showing how what we already has comes very close to what you suggested.
 
sirus1987 said:
That's great that you think I'm in the minority, despite theres no way for you to determine that or come to the conclusion.
Click to expand...
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ equal rigor applied on both sides of the conversation.

I look forward to trying your ground breaking midi controller when you release it!
 
chris said:
probably the same way you determined "many" and "a lot"?




it seems this thread is being cleaned up. rightfully so. it's gone way off topic.

i appreciate your idea. my feedback and thoughts were presented in the form of showing how what we already has comes very close to what you suggested.
Click to expand...

Theres a huge difference between measuring "many" and measuring "most". I dont have measure the entire population to find "many" people. He would have to measure 100% of the population to find out if at least 51% dont like the idea. You're a smart guy Chris, I figured at least you would know the difference.
 
sirus1987 said:
Theres a huge difference between measuring "many" and measuring "most". I dont have measure the entire population to find "many" people. He would have to measure 100% of the population to find out if at least 51% dont like the idea. You're a smart guy Chris, I figured at least you would know the difference.
Click to expand...
is 50 people a lot/many? out of 1000 people, i'd say no. so in either situation, you'd need to know the total amount of people to determine "many" compared to the total.
 
chris said:
is 50 people a lot/many? out of 1000 people, i'd say no. so in either situation, you'd need to know the total amount of people to determine "many" compared to the total.
Click to expand...

I could specify for you, but I doubt it would have any relevance to you. You didnt understand the difference between many and most, you arent going to understand the difference between many and a lot. It's pretty complicated stuff.
 
sirus1987 said:
I could specify for you, but I doubt it would have any relevance to you. You didnt understand the difference between many and most, you arent going to understand the difference between many and a lot. It's pretty complicated stuff.
Click to expand...
Dang earlier you said I was smart :(

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom