FC Utility - Assigned button to raise/lower preset bpm by 1

[zachhord]

I wish I could have a button under my tap tempo button that when pressed would raise the bpm by 1 so that when I tap in a delay tempo for a song at 150, but my closest taps get to 148, 151, I can adjust it quickly without having to keep trying to make the tap tempo perfect.

 

[Joe Bfstplk]

I wish I could have a button under my tap tempo button that when pressed would raise the bpm by 1 so that when I tap in a delay tempo for a song at 150, but my closest taps get to 148, 151, I can adjust it quickly without having to keep trying to make the tap tempo perfect.

+1

Bonus points if it can increment/decrement by any preset value between 1 and 5 BPM when being set up.

Logically, I think it would belong in the Utility section in the switch assignment menu, along with Tap Tempo, Tuner, et al.

It would also be useful for getting tempo right in rehearsals.

 

[Dr. Dipwad]

Bonus points if it can increment/decrement by any preset value between 1 and 5 BPM when being set up.

I think there's a better way: Distinguish between a quick press and a long hold:

QUICK PRESS: bpm +1
LONG HOLD: bpm +10 each second for as long as the footswitch is being held down

(And of course you can have another footswitch set up for quick-press=-1, long-hold=-10 per second.)

 

[Joe Bfstplk]

I think there's a better way: Distinguish between a quick press and a long hold:

QUICK PRESS: bpm +1
LONG HOLD: bpm +10 each second for as long as the footswitch is being held down

(And of course you can have another footswitch set up for quick-press=-1, long-hold=-10 per second.)

If it is set up on a switch, tap and hold could have different increments....

 

[AlGrenadine]

+1

 

[jlynnb1]

this would actually be very useful

 

[Dr. Dipwad]

If it is set up on a switch, tap and hold could have different increments....

Yes, but would it work as I described?

It seems to me that if you merely use the current tap/hold distinction, then a quick tap gets +1, and a long-hold gets a single +10, but you wouldn't get any more +10s until you lifted your foot off the button and then re-depressed it for a second long-hold.

It seems to me that the ideal approach is to have single quick taps produce +1, but long holds will keep giving you +10s, one per second, for as long as you keep holding it down.

This is basically what you see on a lot of digital alarm clocks when setting the current time or the alarm time: You hold the button down and the time changes rapidly as long as you keep holding it. Then, when you get close to your desired time, you release it, and use individual quick button presses to set the time more exactly.

 

[Joe Bfstplk]

Yes, but would it work as I described?

It seems to me that if you merely use the current tap/hold distinction, then a quick tap gets +1, and a long-hold gets a single +10, but you wouldn't get any more +10s until you lifted your foot off the button and then re-depressed it for a second long-hold.

It seems to me that the ideal approach is to have single quick taps produce +1, but long holds will keep giving you +10s, one per second, for as long as you keep holding it down.

This is basically what you see on a lot of digital alarm clocks when setting the current time or the alarm time: You hold the button down and the time changes rapidly as long as you keep holding it. Then, when you get close to your desired time, you release it, and use individual quick button presses to set the time more exactly.

Without the addition of a repeat function, it is as close as we can get. There has been some talk of adding the 'typematic' repeat capability, but not sure of the status of that. Certainly expanding the increment possibilities to 10 from the 5 I suggested is a good thing, though. I would probably rough in tempo with the tap tempo, and use the increments for "oops, it's too fast/slow" adjustments during rehearsal, or, if need be, performance. Some days the drummer's coffee intake may not be on spec....

 

[Dr. Dipwad]

Without the addition of a repeat function, it is as close as we can get.

Gotcha.

So it looks to me like we have 3 options for implementing this WISH, with the first being the most-flexible (and thus most-preferred) option:

Option 1: For as long as one is holding-down a footswitch, it repeatedly adds +10* to the bpm each second**, but if one merely quick-taps the footswitch, it adds +1. (And of course, on another footswitch, one can put -10/-1.) This option sounds like the best UX, but would require a "repeat while holding" behavior which hasn't been implemented for anything else so far.

Option 2: One can assign a +10* for a hold, but it isn't repeating; and on the same switch, also assign a +1 for a quick tap.

Option 3: One can only increment/decrement by 1; consequently, one must use tap-tempo to get "in the neighborhood," and then use increment/decrement to fine-tune the tempo by ones.

* = I'm not married to 10 being the perfect value; perhaps 5 is better; or it could be set by the user as desired.
** = I'm not married to 1 second being the perfect time-interval; perhaps 0.5 seconds is better; or it could be set by the user as desired.

Is that a good summary?

 

[Joe Bfstplk]

Gotcha.

So it looks to me like we have 3 options for implementing this WISH, with the first being the most-flexible (and thus most-preferred) option:

Option 1: For as long as one is holding-down a footswitch, it repeatedly adds +10* to the bpm each second**, but if one merely quick-taps the footswitch, it adds +1. (And of course, on another footswitch, one can put -10/-1.) This option sounds like the best UX, but would require a "repeat while holding" behavior which hasn't been implemented for anything else so far.

Option 2: One can assign a +10* for a hold, but it isn't repeating; and on the same switch, also assign a +1 for a quick tap.

Option 3: One can only increment/decrement by 1; consequently, one must use tap-tempo to get "in the neighborhood," and then use increment/decrement to fine-tune the tempo by ones.

* = I'm not married to 10 being the perfect value; perhaps 5 is better; or it could be set by the user as desired.
** = I'm not married to 1 second being the perfect time-interval; perhaps 0.5 seconds is better; or it could be set by the user as desired.

Is that a good summary?

It's close.

Option 1 requires an additional long-standing wish for typematic repeat on hold.

Option 2 only requires one wish - the addition of a utility switch function. My vote is to give it a chooseable increment, so +/-1 through +/-10 are possible, making any increment from 1 to 10 a user choice. As a standard utility switch, it would be assignable in Layouts and Per-Preset Overrides, and you could stack a +1 tap function and a +10 hold function on the same switch, with the possibility that a future typematic capability would add hold-and-scroll for hold switches in general and complete Option 1.

Option 3 is certainly the smallest wish, but the tap tempo rough-in would be a possibility in all 3 optios, if you think about it....