Wish Daredevil Mode

Marcel

Marcel

Inspired
This would address most of the requests asking for additional blocks. I wish there was a "Daredevil Mode" where users would be allowed to add more blocks than are normally available. For example, I have a preset on my Axe FX3 Turbo that really needs a third Pitch block. Since I'm not using anything else other than one Amp and one Cab I know there's enough CPU so why not give the user the ability to push the limits at their own risk?
 
Admin M@ said:
This is not possible because it would require a completely different product architecture.
Click to expand...
Could you elaborate on that? I have a preset with 2 Pitch, 1 Amp and 1 Cab and it's running with less than 20% CPU. Since these are all software blocks and even if Pitch blocks are processed by a single DSP in the architecture I still have plenty of horsepower left to handle a third and fourth Pitch block. Is this not accurate?
 
Every instance of every block that could possibly be used in a preset must be enumerated at startup. That's because it takes too long to load them from storage on the fly. They have to already be in memory. All of them.

If we put in another Pitch block for you, what block instance do we remove to make room for it? And who else gets left out in the cold because a block instance they use is now gone?
 
Last edited:
Rex said:
Every instance of every block that could possibly be used in a preset must be enumerated at startup. That's because it takes too long to load them from storage on the fly. They have to already be in memory. All of them.

If we put in another Pitch block for you, what block instance do we remove to make room for it? And who else gets left out on the cold because a block instance they use is now gone?
Click to expand...
That's an excellent explanation. Why not just let users decide in Daredevil Mode what to load at startup? That would be the ultimate flexibility for power users. I don't use two thirds of those blocks that are available so I would gladly disable them so they're not enumerated at startup in exchange for adding additional other blocks.
 
Marcel said:
That's an excellent explanation. Why not just let users decide in Daredevil Mode what to load at startup? That would be the ultimate flexibility for power users. I don't use two thirds of those blocks that are available so I would gladly disable them so they're not enumerated at startup in exchange for adding additional other blocks.
Click to expand...
I'd love to see that, but it would be a customer-support nightmare. :eek:
 
Marcel said:
This would address most of the requests asking for additional blocks. I wish there was a "Daredevil Mode" where users would be allowed to add more blocks than are normally available. For example, I have a preset on my Axe FX3 Turbo that really needs a third Pitch block. Since I'm not using anything else other than one Amp and one Cab I know there's enough CPU so why not give the user the ability to push the limits at their own risk?
Click to expand...
In a perfect world, doing that allows for more efficient use of limited resources. In other words, allocation of those limited resources like cpu and memory would be more efficient if fixed limits could be removed and if the available resources could be viewed as a pool to draw from and you can have as many of each type of block as you want until the cpu capacity is exhausted. That's a common way to design a system like this.

The problem is there are a lot of challenges with that kind of design. Flexible allocation makes the implementation more difficult and things like addressing enumerated objects via midi becomes more complex, both to implement and to use. In practice this means you often see compromises to limit the allocation flexibility.
 
GlennO said:
In a perfect world, doing that allows for more efficient use of limited resources. In other words, allocation of those limited resources like cpu and memory would be more efficient if fixed limits could be removed and if the available resources could be viewed as a pool to draw from and you can have as many of each type of block as you want until the cpu capacity is exhausted. That's a common way to design a system like this.

The problem is there are a lot of challenges with that kind of design. Flexible allocation makes the implementation more difficult and things like addressing enumerated objects via midi becomes more complex, both to implement and to use. In practice this means you often see compromises to limit the allocation flexibility.
Click to expand...
1660235639726.png
 
  • Haha
Reactions: JTI
Marcel said:
That's an excellent explanation. Why not just let users decide in Daredevil Mode what to load at startup? That would be the ultimate flexibility for power users. I don't use two thirds of those blocks that are available so I would gladly disable them so they're not enumerated at startup in exchange for adding additional other blocks.
Click to expand...
This a thousand times over. If that is at all possible, it would truly be a game changer!
 
Would be really cool to have this on Fm3,9 in particular 👍, but unlikely to materialize as mentioned above. wrt "at users' own risk", I doubt Fractal would provide a core feature in a "use at your own risk" form since, as we could probably guess, when problems start occurring, support line callers will likely tend to have forgotten about the "at users' own risk" part.
 
Last edited:
GlennO said:
In a perfect world, doing that allows for more efficient use of limited resources. In other words, allocation of those limited resources like cpu and memory would be more efficient if fixed limits could be removed and if the available resources could be viewed as a pool to draw from and you can have as many of each type of block as you want until the cpu capacity is exhausted. That's a common way to design a system like this.

The problem is there are a lot of challenges with that kind of design. Flexible allocation makes the implementation more difficult and things like addressing enumerated objects via midi becomes more complex, both to implement and to use. In practice this means you often see compromises to limit the allocation flexibility.
Click to expand...
Flexible allocation also leads to customers complaining about the system pricing when they only need to run an input, amp, cab, output chain.

“It’s not fair I have to pay all that money for something I’m not using.”

There’s no way to satisfy everyone.
 
Greg Ferguson said:
Flexible allocation also leads to customers complaining about the system pricing when they only need to run an input, amp, cab, output chain.

“It’s not fair I have to pay all that money for something I’m not using.”

There’s no way to satisfy everyone.
Click to expand...
Then they should buy the FM3.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KFF
Interesting idea for sure, but it makes sense why it isn't feasible.

Maybe a better way to look at this is: What blocks do you need more of? For instance, the only time I've ever really "hit a wall" is with Pitch and Amp/Cab blocks.
 
for those that may not realize - 2 pitch blocks can cover a lot of ground within one preset - I have mine doing: capo, whammy up, whammy down, actave, detune, and harmony all
switchable.
 
sprint said:
for those that may not realize - 2 pitch blocks can cover a lot of ground within one preset - I have mine doing: capo, whammy up, whammy down, actave, detune, and harmony all
switchable.
Click to expand...
I need two arpeggiators plus a whammy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom