FM3 Firmware Version 7.00 beta 3

Status
Not open for further replies.
skolacki said:
The idea is to try to duplicate the issue and clearly describe what happened. And post your preset. You gave FAS nothing to work with.
Click to expand...

He said amp FAS 6160, turn the bass knob and the FM3 "hanged on" by which I assume he means freezes, or gets hung up. I'm guessing English is not his first language. So, he did give a starting point, but yes, a preset would be more helpful.
 
I wonder what people think? Is it fair to state that if a person has not been using the latest official firmware and is reasonably familiar with it (satisfied with its function) they should not load a new beta or at least not comment on bugs they think they found? Because even though it’s a common joke among tech people sometimes what are bugs and what are features can be confused.

I’m just a an average user and nobody and I certainly don’t want to make anyone feel excluded or say what they can do, but when it comes to beta testing it is important to have some sort of methodology to it.
 
GitGuy513 said:
I wonder what people think? Is it fair to state that if a person has not been using the latest official firmware and is reasonably familiar with it (satisfied with its function) they should not load a new beta or at least not comment on bugs they think they found? Because even though it’s a common joke among tech people sometimes what are bugs and what are features can be confused.

I’m just a an average user and nobody and I certainly don’t want to make anyone feel excluded or say what they can do, but when it comes to beta testing it is important to have some sort of methodology to it.
Click to expand...

When it's a public beta any control over "methodolgy" is lost. That's why they have a private beta first with users they know are experienced and can give detailed and clear feedback.

Public is for anyone to use how they want. They only control they really have is to only publish it here so feedback is in one place and people at least had a chance to read a disclaimer first. And it must still be worthwhile otherwise they wouldn't do it. Letting the "unwashed masses" bump against it can bring out things like that 5150 issue that was missed in internal testing, so they can fix it before wider release.

Put another way, they do a tiny release on the forum with a Beta label so people can think twice before installing on their way to a large gig, and get a small sample of what a wider release might discover, and fix it before adding it to the automatic update tools.
 
I reported this in another thread, but was asked to mention it here:

I received my FM3 MK II this week and just now tried switching an existing preset to DynaCabs. Instantly, super loud static and screeching blasts me from my speaker. I had to turn the FM3 off to make it stop. I tried it again with a different preset, same result. I don't want to try it again, my ears already hurt. I plan on contacting support, but wondering if anyone else has had this issue. I also have an AF3, and haven't experienced anything like this. I was using the 5153 amp model
 
taracatac said:
I reported this in another thread, but was asked to mention it here:

I received my FM3 MK II this week and just now tried switching an existing preset to DynaCabs. Instantly, super loud static and screeching blasts me from my speaker. I had to turn the FM3 off to make it stop. I tried it again with a different preset, same result. I don't want to try it again, my ears already hurt. I plan on contacting support, but wondering if anyone else has had this issue. I also have an AF3, and haven't experienced anything like this. I was using the 5153 amp model
Click to expand...

I think someone else had reported a similar issue and they reloaded the beta firmware on their device and it resolved it.
 
IronSean said:
When it's a public beta any control over "methodolgy" is lost. That's why they have a private beta first with users they know are experienced and can give detailed and clear feedback.

Public is for anyone to use how they want. They only control they really have is to only publish it here so feedback is in one place and people at least had a chance to read a disclaimer first. And it must still be worthwhile otherwise they wouldn't do it. Letting the "unwashed masses" bump against it can bring out things like that 5150 issue that was missed in internal testing, so they can fix it before wider release.

Put another way, they do a tiny release on the forum with a Beta label so people can think twice before installing on their way to a large gig, and get a small sample of what a wider release might discover, and fix it before adding it to the automatic update tools.
Click to expand...
I have to disagree with some of this. All betas I participated of other products and software (although they were still people chosen and not public) was to get a larger sampling and suss out more (usually more user specific or minor) bugs. To me the beta label is to help the company perfect their product and not to selfishly cop the latest goodies early. Even though that is a bonus for the help.

As far as a “methodology” well that is possible to the degree to which someone takes things seriously. I guess I’m not the average person after all. I tend to have a methodology to everything I do in life. I suppose this is why most people frustrate the hell out of me.

Mainly, the one specific thing I mentioned seems logical. I only asked to see if I may have missed a positive or useful reason to have some users go from a much older firmware to the beta and “publish” it. As of now the 5150 bug is not about what firmware someone was using prior. I was more thinking about “the beta made all my presets and IR’s sound like crap” issue. Which seems to have become less discussed because the few (or maybe one) person(s) that had this complaint immediately gave up and went back to the old firmware and disappeared.
 
Last edited:
GitGuy513 said:
I have to disagree with some of this. All betas I participated of other products and software (although they were still people chosen and not public) was to get a larger sampling and suss out more (usually more user specific or minor) bugs. To me the beta label is to help the company perfect their product and not to selfishly cop the latest goodies early. Even though that is a bonus for the help.

As far as a “methodology” well that is possible to the degree to which someone takes things seriously. I guess I’m not the average person after all. I tend to have a methodology to everything I do in life. I suppose this is why most people frustrate the hell out of me.

Mainly, the one specific thing I mentioned seems logical. I only asked to see if I may have missed a positive or useful reason to have some users go from a much older firmware to the beta and “publish” it. As of now the 5150 bug is not about what firmware someone was using prior. I was more thinking about “the beta made all my presets and IR’s sound like crap” issue. Which seems to have become less discussed because the few (or maybe one) person(s) that had this complaint immediately gave up and went back to the old firmware and disappeared.
Click to expand...
I recorded my presets and scenes extra under the old firmware. I can't hear any difference with the Beta 3.
My YorkAudio IRs are all set to HighRes.
Nothing changed for me after the update.
That's just my impression now.
 
GitGuy513 said:
I have to disagree with some of this. All betas I participated of other products and software (although they were still people chosen and not public) was to get a larger sampling and suss out more (usually more user specific or minor) bugs. To me the beta label is to help the company perfect their product and not to selfishly cop the latest goodies early. Even though that is a bonus for the help.

As far as a “methodology” well that is possible to the degree to which someone takes things seriously. I guess I’m not the average person after all. I tend to have a methodology to everything I do in life. I suppose this is why most people frustrate the hell out of me.

Mainly, the one specific thing I mentioned seems logical. I only asked to see if I may have missed a positive or useful reason to have some users go from a much older firmware to the beta and “publish” it. As of now the 5150 bug is not about what firmware someone was using prior. I was more thinking about “the beta made all my presets and IR’s sound like crap” issue. Which seems to have become less discussed because the few (or maybe one) person(s) that had this complaint immediately gave up and went back to the old firmware and disappeared.
Click to expand...
Ultimately everyone who uses the beta is volunteering their time and engaging with it at a level that works for them for reasons that make sense to them. For some, it's because they appreciate the product and want to help improve it. For others, they just see it as a preview of the new features they get because they use this forum.

In a private beta you choose your participants and set expectations and have a one to one agreement on what the purpose is. In a public beta you give up that specific control in exchange for volumn. You hope that through quanity and variety of users stuff will bubble up that your smaller, specilized private beta might not have found. You might get the uninformed user who has no idea what something is supposed to do using it in an unexpected way and finding a bug. Though sheer quantity you get a few users reporting issues with the 5150 models that more dedicated testers or staff can explore. You give up the micro-level control to hope that things average out to useful on the macro-level.

It's fine to offer suggestions on how people who have problems can dig in further to confirm or invalidate their experience, but everyone is on here for their own reasons. Don't blame the user complaining about the change in sound for reverting, he isn't a software developer, prodect specialist, or quality assurance staff at fractal. He's a musician wanting to make music, and reverting to the previous release made more sense for him.

He also likely encouraged some of the more didicated users as well as fractal staff to look into it, so it still got chased down even if that user didn't want to engage with it anymore.
 
IronSean said:
Ultimately everyone who uses the beta is volunteering their time and engaging with it at a level that works for them for reasons that make sense to them. For some, it's because they appreciate the product and want to help improve it. For others, they just see it as a preview of the new features they get because they use this forum.

In a private beta you choose your participants and set expectations and have a one to one agreement on what the purpose is. In a public beta you give up that specific control in exchange for volumn. You hope that through quanity and variety of users stuff will bubble up that your smaller, specilized private beta might not have found. You might get the uninformed user who has no idea what something is supposed to do using it in an unexpected way and finding a bug. Though sheer quantity you get a few users reporting issues with the 5150 models that more dedicated testers or staff can explore. You give up the micro-level control to hope that things average out to useful on the macro-level.

It's fine to offer suggestions on how people who have problems can dig in further to confirm or invalidate their experience, but everyone is on here for their own reasons. Don't blame the user complaining about the change in sound for reverting, he isn't a software developer, prodect specialist, or quality assurance staff at fractal. He's a musician wanting to make music, and reverting to the previous release made more sense for him.

He also likely encouraged some of the more didicated users as well as fractal staff to look into it, so it still got chased down even if that user didn't want to engage with it anymore.
Click to expand...
I think you completely missed my point or don’t understand what I’m saying. I’m not complaining about someone reverting back to old firmware. I’m suggesting that people should make sure it’s actually a bug with the new beta and not something they missed in subsequent official firmware releases from the one they were using. It’s all water under the bridge at this point.

Basically, this is matter of old school attitudes that worked and lazy, entitled new school crap. I’m out.
 
taracatac said:
I am going to wait for the release version. It was quite shocking and hurt my ears.
Click to expand...

I had the very same issue but with my FM3 MK1. I was using one of my own presets, I had changed the amp model to the Engl Powerball model which increased the CPU to around 82%, I changed the cab from one of my own IRs set to UltraRes to the Dynacab and this is when I got the same issue as you, except I was wearing headphone and not very nice to experience but I'd say I must have pushed the CPU way beyond 100% which I think then causes this issue. If you just push into the late 90% range, you'll get the CPU warning and then the FM3 will just silent itself until you change preset or change the setting back from what pushed the CPU to its limit. It would be nice if the FM3 muted itself for any instance where the CPU goes beyond its capabilities. I must admit, I quite like the standard IRs I use in Ultrares with all my presets, I don't have a need to go into the Dynacab feature at all, maybe I'll play about with it on a very basic preset some more one day.
 
JD Elliott said:
I had the very same issue but with my FM3 MK1. I was using one of my own presets, I had changed the amp model to the Engl Powerball model which increased the CPU to around 82%, I changed the cab from one of my own IRs set to UltraRes to the Dynacab and this is when I got the same issue as you, except I was wearing headphone and not very nice to experience but I'd say I must have pushed the CPU way beyond 100% which I think then causes this issue. If you just push into the late 90% range, you'll get the CPU warning and then the FM3 will just silent itself until you change preset or change the setting back from what pushed the CPU to its limit. It would be nice if the FM3 muted itself for any instance where the CPU goes beyond its capabilities. I must admit, I quite like the standard IRs I use in Ultrares with all my presets, I don't have a need to go into the Dynacab feature at all, maybe I'll play about with it on a very basic preset some more one day.
Click to expand...
The Dyna-Cabs should use less CPU than an UltraRes IR...
 
Are DynaCabs automatically in stereo? ...
Right now, I need to hard pan left and right two similar IRs to have stereo signal.
With DynaCabs, I don't want to pan Mics - I want to have one DynaCab full left and right - possible?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom