FC18 and FC21

Do you want a larger Foot Controller?

  • No, I'll be fine with a FC6 or FC12

    Votes: 87 47.5%
  • No, I'll be fine with multiple FC6 and/or FC12

    Votes: 12 6.6%
  • Yes, give me a FC18 (3x6 switches)

    Votes: 32 17.5%
  • Yes, give me a FC21 (3x7 switches)

    Votes: 52 28.4%

  • Total voters
    183
brianv4:



I know what you're saying, but I think both sides are true.

It's not that the same group of people complained both times. It's two groups.

THERE ARE TWO KINDS OF PEOPLE IN THIS WORLD...
For any given number of switches, some folks would prefer their footcontroller to be multiple rows "tall"; others prefer it to be many columns "wide."

Format Option 1
I'm in the latter group myself. I have no practical limitations on the width of my pedalboard, but whenever I try to reach my foot over more than one row of footswitches I end up brushing one of the ones I'm reaching over either before or after I stomp my target. So I prefer having a footcontroller that's only 2 rows "tall."

Format Option 2
Other people are trying to keep their pedalboard sized small. For them, they want the controller only 3 columns "wide" like an FC-6, or at most 6 columns wide like the FC-12, but they want lots of switches so they need it 3 or 4 rows "tall."

WHO'S CRYIN' NOW?
When all we had was the MFC-101, the latter group was happy so they didn't complain. But the first group complained.

Now Fractal is proposing a switch to the fewer-rows format. So the former group is happy and the latter group is complaining.

WHAT'S A COMPANY TO DO?
Probably Fractal's best bet is to offer one footcontroller that's several rows deep, but with a column-width between that of the FC-6 and the FC-12. Maybe it'd be the FC-16 (if it was 4x4).

Whatever exact size it is, Fractal can offer that, in addition to the FC-6 and the FC-12. Keep them daisy-chainable and inexpensive-enough that it won't break the bank to combine 2 units.

By doing that, everybody gets exactly what they want:
- Those who prefer more column-width but less row-depth can use the FC-12.
- Those who want more row-depth but less column-width can use the FC-16.
- Those who want it really small in both dimensions can use the FC-6.
- And for those who want it (ahem) "deep and wide," they can daisy-chain two FC-16s.
Would you mind editing your post and adding “hypothetical” in front of the “FC-16s” that you mention please? I know this seems silly, but people will see your post and think that it actually exists. There is no FC-16 product. Thank you.
 
Per preset, and especially per scene layouts will make more buttons unnecessary. Imagine when you switch to your clean scene you have your clean specific IA's all lined up with scribble strips to remind you where they are.. Compression, chorus, delay, dirt, etc

Then switch to your lead scene, now your layout changes and your IAs are short delay, long delay, octave, etc

Then another layout for a rhythym scene.. Etc

Here's hoping per-scene layouts are doable (if they are, I missed it). If all the instructions are coming from the Axe III, I don't see why it wouldn't be as easily implemented as per-preset layouts. With tap and hold, 12 buttons + 4 external switches are more than enough to do what's needed within a scene. Being able to bring in different functions without having to memorize where they are laid out is huge.

Also love the idea of being able to configure a custom looper layout where I can get back to a handful of scenes without too much tap dancing.

This type of setup would solve all of my wishlist issues with the MFC, except maybe the flexibility to repurpose expression pedals between channels or scenes.
 
I'm sorry but I agree w/ @unix-guy. The idea of holding one button with my heel while tapping the button above it with my toe sounds very clunky... I can't see that ever working well while I'm playing. Maybe for switching between songs but it still sounds unnecessarily awkward. Given that choice I'd rather have it be like the AX8 where you hold a switch to get into whatever mode you select, but you don't have to keep holding it. What if you wanted to assign a top-row switch as the hold switch? I like using the bottom row switches whenever possible, because it's easier to have my toe ready to tap something than it is to hover over an upper row.

I know @FractalAudio answered my question a while back and thought it could have custom layouts per preset, but it still isn't clear whether this is limited to the 12 overall layouts, or if you can have whatever layout you want for every preset. This would be my preference - the same way the AX8 works. It would make sense that this could be implemented in the III.

If we only had 12 total layouts, would that also include the *effect names* on the scribble strips? Given that we use different effect models in different presets, the scribble strips aren't nearly as useful if all they can say is Amp 1, Drive 2, and so on, as opposed to Plexi, Timmy, Tri-Chorus, 2290 mod, etc. I get that this is all the AX8 can display but w/ scribble strips they hopefully can be customized, or at least read the actual effect/model name from the III.
 
this is what cracks me up. When it was only the MFC everybody wanted smaller. Now we'll be able to get small AND smaller (which BTW can also be configure to insanely larger too) and people are complaining. geez...
Different complainers!

I'm fairly happy with the MFC dimensions, but would appreciate more flexibility. But guys like my bassist would appreciate something like a 6 or 8 button version, so they get the MFC integration without the giant footprint.

I like the flexibility of the FC design BUT I have built my workflow and preset design around what I can do with the MFC button layout. So, going from 17 buttons down to 12 on the FC12 is a big difference.

Probably I won't care due to the new design, but without knowing the details other than the fact that my existing controller will NOT integrate with the Axe Fx III makes me worry. I suspect that is what many are concerned about.

The thing I've learned to take into account in these kinds of discussions is not to assume that my workflow is the same as the next guy, nor are my needs.

I think this is one of the greatest challenges to a company like Fractal - meeting the requirements of the many different workflows and use cases.
 
Would you mind editing your post and adding “hypothetical” in front of the “FC-16s” that you mention please? I know this seems silly, but people will see your post and think that it actually exists. There is no FC-16 product. Thank you.
To be fair, the poll on thread lists FC18 and FC21, which also don't exist ;)
 
To be fair, the poll on thread lists FC18 and FC21, which also don't exist ;)
That’s more obvious I think. The post I quoted states it more firmly as if it exists and people tend to read only the latest posts and not the title or the original post. Also what he mentions is not in the original post or title, making it more believable that it is something that exists.
 
I'm sorry but I agree w/ @unix-guy. The idea of holding one button with my heel while tapping the button above it with my toe sounds very clunky... I can't see that ever working well while I'm playing. Maybe for switching between songs but it still sounds unnecessarily awkward. Given that choice I'd rather have it be like the AX8 where you hold a switch to get into whatever mode you select, but you don't have to keep holding it. What if you wanted to assign a top-row switch as the hold switch? I like using the bottom row switches whenever possible, because it's easier to have my toe ready to tap something than it is to hover over an upper row.
Exactly! Clunky is the first word I thought of... What if your feet are too large or small to even do this? Might work for some people but not for me. Maybe we're in the minority?

I know @FractalAudio answered my question a while back and thought it could have custom layouts per preset, but it still isn't clear whether this is limited to the 12 overall layouts, or if you can have whatever layout you want for every preset. This would be my preference - the same way the AX8 works. It would make sense that this could be implemented in the III.
Yes, same for me. Although I can see a reason to limit the number of layouts... but I'd like to allow for multiple layouts per scene, too (I can dream!)
If we only had 12 total layouts, would that also include the *effect names* on the scribble strips? Given that we use different effect models in different presets, the scribble strips aren't nearly as useful if all they can say is Amp 1, Drive 2, and so on, as opposed to Plexi, Timmy, Tri-Chorus, 2290 mod, etc. I get that this is all the AX8 can display but w/ scribble strips they hopefully can be customized, or at least read the actual effect/model name from the III.
I never thought about that, but it's a good point. I'm used to "drive 1" and "drive 2" type of static labels, but with all the options Channels gives us, that may become hard to track.
 
The heel toe thing.. I would withhold judgement until I try it. Heel-toe is a required skill for clutch use on the race track. A couple days on the track and you will be switching layouts like a pro
 
Different complainers!

I'm fairly happy with the MFC dimensions, but would appreciate more flexibility. But guys like my bassist would appreciate something like a 6 or 8 button version, so they get the MFC integration without the giant footprint.

I like the flexibility of the FC design BUT I have built my workflow and preset design around what I can do with the MFC button layout. So, going from 17 buttons down to 12 on the FC12 is a big difference.

Probably I won't care due to the new design, but without knowing the details other than the fact that my existing controller will NOT integrate with the Axe Fx III makes me worry. I suspect that is what many are concerned about.

The thing I've learned to take into account in these kinds of discussions is not to assume that my workflow is the same as the next guy, nor are my needs.

I think this is one of the greatest challenges to a company like Fractal - meeting the requirements of the many different workflows and use cases.
Without all the details, I'm guessing foot control is going to be simpler achieving greater flexibility. Everyone's workflow with a III + FC is going to be different regardless. I hope every preset would have it's own FC assignments. Folks at Fractal must be pulling there hair out right now. yeah, I know Cliff ;-)
 
For people saying that we don't even know yet what the new FC will be capable of; I say: it's completely irrelevant to the initial poll here.

This all about "form factor", "size" and number of switches you can directly access at a given time without any other manipulations or tap dance such hold, menu or the whole new "heel while tapping" thing (I mean: WTH are they smoking on this one??!).

Also, by the current results, if half of the voters would be perfectly fine with the FC6/FC12, it also shows that the other half of the voters would actually want larger models with 3 rows instead of 2. And that, I don't think it's irrelevant...
 
Although I can see a reason to limit the number of layouts... but I'd like to allow for multiple layouts per scene, too (I can dream!)
I'm hoping that since the AX8 allows a separate layout for every preset, the III will be able to as well. Otherwise, it seems like it would be very limiting, given how many different fx/types you could put into different presets. It may well be that FAS has a great solution - and once we understand it, it'll make total sense. But at this point it still seems very unclear.

I never thought about that, but it's a good point. I'm used to "drive 1" and "drive 2" type of static labels, but with all the options Channels gives us, that may become hard to track.
I've never used any of the RJM or LF controllers, but don't they let you customize the labels? And I know that the <cough cough> Helix at least displays the actual name of the effect in use, not just a generic "drive" etc. Also realized it would be helpful for an IA that activates a Scene for it to display the name of the scene... so instead of S2 or Scene 2 it would say Lead or Breakdown or whatever.
 
So I believe Fractal's thinking is that less switches would be needed on a per-preset basis? Even things like tap tempo can only be added to a switch when needed for a particular preset. There will also be 'Push and Hold' possibilities. As well as multiple layers

Occam's Razor, of course.

Keep it Simple . . I heard someone say.
 
For people saying that we don't even know yet what the new FC will be capable of; I say: it's completely irrelevant to the initial poll here.

This all about "form factor", "size" and number of switches you can directly access at a given time without any other manipulations or tap dance such hold, menu or the whole new "heel while tapping" thing (I mean: WTH are they smoking on this one??!).

Also, by the current results, if half of the voters would be perfectly fine with the FC6/FC12, it also shows that the other half of the voters would actually want larger models with 3 rows instead of 2. And that, I don't think it's irrelevant...
Form factor is almost entirely dependant on use case and workflow. I don't think you can separate them...
 
Form factor is almost entirely dependant on use case and workflow. I don't think you can separate them...

I disagree. Form factor can also heavily depend on your floor footprint.

As already mentioned, some people don't want more than 2 rows to not touch another switches and they don't mind to have a footprint that will be wider. And others will have to keep a narrow footprint and therefore prefer to have 3 rows, or maybe even 4.

Of course, it could perfectly dependent of the workflow too (such: 1 row for Scene, 1 row for PreFX, 1 row for PostFX, maybe side switches for boost, tap, preset up/down, maybe even some Amp controls... I know that the minimum I would want). But it doesn't mean that entirely about the workflow. The overall size on the floor and how far you want to "reach" switches is important. For instance, some guitarist sings too (I don't), therefore they want to stay in front of the mic and not have 2 row of 12 switches where each side of the FC have different zipcodes.

My 2¢
 
An interesting note: all the pro rigs I've helped with have had their MFCs set up so only the first and occasionally the second row of buttons are active during a performance. The rest of the buttons are either duplicates in the event of a misstep or disabled.
 
An interesting note: all the pro rigs I've helped with have had their MFCs set up so only the first and occasionally the second row of buttons are active during a performance. The rest of the buttons are either duplicates in the event of a misstep or disabled.

Seems reasonable. I know with my big feet, and the second row of buttons on my AX8 I often hit something I didn't mean to, or don't engage the button at all. First row is never a problem. That is just playing at home, no pressure, no jumping around etc.
 
For people saying that we don't even know yet what the new FC will be capable of; I say: it's completely irrelevant to the initial poll here.

This all about "form factor", "size" and number of switches you can directly access at a given time without any other manipulations or tap dance such hold, menu or the whole new "heel while tapping" thing (I mean: WTH are they smoking on this one??!).

Also, by the current results, if half of the voters would be perfectly fine with the FC6/FC12, it also shows that the other half of the voters would actually want larger models with 3 rows instead of 2. And that, I don't think it's irrelevant...
This shouldn't turn into an argument, you don't know at this point what you can do with the existing 6/12 footprint. I mean (for example) if you've got 6 scenes across the top with 6 stomps below that change with each of the 6 scenes, and then hold down button #1 and have access to 12 presets? holy crap!
 
lqdsnddist:

Seems reasonable. I know with my big feet, and the second row of buttons on my AX8 I often hit something I didn't mean to, or don't engage the button at all. First row is never a problem. That is just playing at home, no pressure, no jumping around etc.

Yep, I have similar problems with the MFC-101.

I like the look of the FC-series footcontrollers, but I'm hoping that the center-on-center distance between footswitches is a little larger now than it used to be on the MFC-101. That would help.

Another thing which would help (or, would have helped) is: staggering the switch position by rows.

If this represents the current version of the FC-12...
.___________________________________________________
| . logo. . . . . [ L.C.D. Screen ] . . . . logo. . |
|___________________________________________________|
| . . O . . . O . . . O . . . O . . . O . . . O . . |
|___________________________________________________|
| . . O . . . O . . . O . . . O . . . O . . . O . . |
|___________________________________________________|


...then, imagine having it look like this, instead...

.___________________________________________________
| . logo. . . . . [ L.C.D. Screen ] . . . . logo. . |
|___________________________________________________|
| . . . O . . . O . . . O . . . O . . . O . . . O . |
|___________________________________________________|
| . O . . . O . . . O . . . O . . . O . . . O . . . |
|___________________________________________________|


The offset footswitch positions makes it much easier to avoid hitting the wrong one. (I know; I used to have a Digitech/Johnson Millennium amp with a footcontroller like this.)

Partly it's the increased distance between the switches: In the non-staggered layout, if the rows are 3" apart, then the footswitches (center-on-center) are also 3" apart. But with the staggered arrangement, they would be...let me see here, square root of the hypotenuse, ummm...4.2426" apart!

But it's also the fact that, when your foot is going towards a given switch on the top row, it's just not horizontally lined up to easily touch anything on row 1.

So I really kinda prefer the staggered arrangement. Looks like they didn't go with that, for the FC-series. Oh, well! But I hope that maybe the switches will be a little further from one another than on the MFC.
 
Back
Top Bottom