Fm9 is amazing BUT...

steadystate said:
The OP uses phrases like:

"it would be easy to implement"

"surely this can't be that hard to implement"

"It can't be that difficult"

"I don't think is something difficult to implement"

"I don't think is that complicated"

"It cant be that difficult to implement it the way others have been doing it"

Funny stuff. Armchair engineering is always a hoot. What's difficult to implement are astonishingly accurate models with a depth of programming orders of magnitude beyond the competition. I've used Helix, Headrush, etc. Pretty pictures and easy editing, with shallow programming capabilities, and atrocious sound and feel. UI improvements are always welcome, but there are practical limits to simplifying an interface that controls a complicated system. I'm happy to leave a universally comprehensible interface to Fisher-Price.

But sure, let's tell fractal to get on the ball because, you know, "it's not that difficult to implement."
Click to expand...
Agree with all sound related!!! Not about the UI.
I’ve used Helix as well and that why I bought my Fm9, and it’s been amazing all this time. I have already played a few concerts with it and it’s been a blast!

Just a conversation about what, in my humble opinion, could be improved.

I’m not the only one who have expressed concern about the function of the scenes and I really think that it could be improved.

If you read my original post, you will find that I have praised Fractal a lot, but you are only taking little pieces.

Anyway, I’m not trying to annoy you or any other member of the forum, which I read everyday and it’s been helpful so many times.

I wish you merry Christmas and happy ending of the year!!!!!
 
steadystate said:
The OP uses phrases like:

"it would be easy to implement"

"surely this can't be that hard to implement"

"It can't be that difficult"

"I don't think is something difficult to implement"

"I don't think is that complicated"

"It cant be that difficult to implement it the way others have been doing it"

Funny stuff. Armchair engineering is always a hoot. What's difficult to implement are astonishingly accurate models with a depth of programming orders of magnitude beyond the competition. I've used Helix, Headrush, etc. Pretty pictures and easy editing, with shallow programming capabilities, and atrocious sound and feel. UI improvements are always welcome, but there are practical limits to simplifying an interface that controls a complicated system. I'm happy to leave a universally comprehensible interface to Fisher-Price.

But sure, let's tell fractal to get on the ball because, you know, "it's not that difficult to implement."
Click to expand...
Harsh but fair.
 
JayCM800XL said:
I just wish I had an FM9 Turbo.
Click to expand...
I love it and have been using it for a cover band. It excels in creating all kinds of of sounds, apart from the obvious incredible amp sounds. Even mimicking Synthesisers.

I don’t want people to think that I’m not happy with my Fm9, if that was the case, I wouldn’t have started this conversation.

I just would like to have some features that others have without losing any of the capabilities we have.

Merry Christmas!!!!
 
momogris said:
Jajaja, harsh with no reason.

As I said, there is no need to be rude and I love this forum, which it’s been helpful so many times when I needed to understand anything about our unit.

Merry Christmas!!! Wish you the best!!!
Click to expand...
Old dogs are salty.

Thick skin

Merry Christmas
 
momogris said:
We have three drive blocks but that is not I was asking for, because then again, what if you want to stack drives? You come back to four channels. It is the ease of use in general in some areas.

There is no need to be rude, I chose to use Fractal and I’m very happy, but there always is room for improvement and for different opinions.

There’s nothing wrong wanting to have more features, and having a look to what others do.

Apple is the leader and is always taking ideas from others and implementing them when they think they are worth it or ready.

We should be more open to new ideas. I don’t think I asked or suggested anything crazy and I did it in a polite manner.

Cheers!
Click to expand...
But you aren't asking for "more features", you are asking for fundamental changes to the way the Fractal ecosystem works to make it the same as other products.
 
unix-guy said:
But you aren't asking for "more features", you are asking for fundamental changes to the way the Fractal ecosystem works to make it the same as other products.
Click to expand...
Honestly, I don’t think I’m asking for a fundamental change.

Regarding scenes, I would like to add the feature of changing the parameters with a single right click (or something like that) without losing the ability to use scene controllers for more advanced changes.

About the UI, I would like a refinement in the graphical department and the ease of use, not to lose any feature we have right now.

Fractal is very different already to other products, because the quality of everything it includes (without no exceptions) is way better than the rest, so I don’t think that doing what others do in a little area is going to harm the reputation or the uniqueness of Fractal.

All companies copy each other and the market it seems to go for touch screens, beautiful designed UI and the easy of use.

I’m not saying Fractal has to go that way, I’m nobody anyway and I’m not saying I’m right, just my opinion watching what others modellers are doing now.

Look, it’s just that the sound and feel it’s already so good that it might be worth it to explore other areas where Fractal could excel as well.

Just my two cents.

Cheers!!!!
 
momogris said:
Honestly, I don’t think I’m asking for a fundamental change.

Regarding scenes, I would like to add the feature of changing the parameters with a single right click (or something like that) without losing the ability to use scene controllers for more advanced changes.

About the UI, I would like a refinement in the graphical department and the ease of use, not to lose any feature we have right now.

Fractal is very different already to other products, because the quality of everything it includes (without no exceptions) is way better than the rest, so I don’t think that doing what others do in a little area is going to harm the reputation or the uniqueness of Fractal.

All companies copy each other and the market it seems to go for touch screens, beautiful designed UI and the easy of use.

I’m not saying Fractal has to go that way, I’m nobody anyway and I’m not saying I’m right, just my opinion watching what others modellers are doing now.

Look, it’s just that the sound and feel it’s already so good that it might be worth it to explore other areas where Fractal could excel as well.

Just my two cents.

Cheers!!!!
Click to expand...
As of now, scenes have no storage for block parameters, so your little change is actually pretty huge.

Scenes store which blocks are enabled, what channels each block is on, plus which scene was selected when the preset was saved, and that's pretty much it.
 
Dave Merrill said:
As of now, scenes have no storage for block parameters, so your little change is actually pretty huge.
Click to expand...

The scene controller UI could probably stand some improvement (and it would be nice to have a few more of them). For example, right click on a parameter and choose "I want this parameter to vary between scenes", which attaches an unused scene controller to it, initializes all the scenes to the current parameter value, and the parameter is highlighted in AxeEdit to indicate it's attached to a scene controller. Adjusting a parameter in this state adjusts its respective scene controller. (The UI could offer an option to reuse an existing scene controller if you want to support the rare case where parameters share a scene controller).

This gives you Helix-style scenes without changing anything in the firmware. I wouldn't expect many AxeFX veterans to give up scenes/channels to use this instead, but it's probably a better UI for scene controllers than what we have today. It's kinda annoying to have to leave the page with the parameter you want to adjust and go to the scene controller page to make the adjustment.
 
GlennO said:
The scene controller UI could probably stand some improvement (and it would be nice to have a few more of them). For example, right click on a parameter and choose "I want this parameter to vary between scenes", which attaches an unused scene controller to it, initializes all the scenes to the current parameter value, and the parameter is highlighted in AxeEdit to indicate it's attached to a scene controller. Adjusting a parameter in this state adjusts its respective scene controller. (The UI could offer an option to reuse an existing scene controller if you want to support the rare case where parameters share a scene controller).

This gives you Helix-style scenes without changing anything in the firmware. I wouldn't expect many AxeFX veterans to give up scenes/channels to use this instead, but it's probably a better UI for scene controllers than what we have today. It's kinda annoying to have to leave the page with the parameter you want to adjust and go to the scene controller page to make the adjustment.
Click to expand...
Interesting idea.

The thing about Fractal controllers is that there's a whole other level of control and abstraction between the controller value and its effect on parameters - scaling, min, max, curve, yadda. They don't let you set a control's value directly.

On Helix, "attached to a scene controller" is really shorthand for "has a separate setting in each scene". There's no actual controller in the Fractal sense, a numerical value coming from somewhere that can be scaled etc and applied to any number of parameters.

It's a much simpler model, easy to get your head around - just "attach a control to the scene controller", then grab it and set it per scene, done.

It'd take some thought to figure out how to integrate the two controller models, but it might be cool, if it could be made to be simpler than things are now, without losing the power we have, not more complicated.
 
Dave Merrill said:
The thing about Fractal controllers is that there's a whole other level of control and abstraction between the controller value and its effect on parameters - scaling, min, max, curve, yadda. They don't let you set a control's value directly.
Click to expand...

The modifier would still be there if you want to take advantage of the more advanced features. Nothing would be taken away...it's just a simpler and more intuitive UI for scene controllers. It's probably helpful to disregard whether this UI would happen to be similar to another modeler and instead ask "What can be improved about the scene controller UI?". I think this idea would be an answer to that question.
 
leagueofkruger said:
Pros use Fractal. Those guys and their techs are the ones that I think Fractal is really concerned with.
Click to expand...

The music industry is driven by consumer sales, not the big name pros. There used to be a saying in the car industry (in referring to factories sponsoring racing teams) "Win on Sunday, sell on Monday."

Now that is not saying that Fractal doesn't take their support of professional musicians seriously (which they obviously do), but it's us goofy hobbyists/weekend warriors that represent the bulk of their sales.
 
GlennO said:
The modifier would still be there if you want to take advantage of the more advanced features. Nothing would be taken away...it's just a simpler and more intuitive UI for scene controllers. It's probably helpful to disregard whether this UI would happen to be similar to another modeler and instead ask "What can be improved about the scene controller UI?". I think this idea would be an answer to that question.
Click to expand...
Sorry if I'm being thick.

Nothing in the current controller model lets you assign a controller to a parameter, and without doing anything else, now the control has separate settings in each scene.

Or maybe it does, and i just never thought about it that way, so i didn't use it that way.

I don't get it.
 
Dave Merrill said:
Sorry if I'm being thick.

Nothing in the current controller model lets you assign a controller to a parameter, and without doing anything else, now the control has separate settings in each scene.

Or maybe it does, and i just never thought about it that way, so i didn't use it that way.

I don't get it.
Click to expand...
That's exactly what a Scene Controller does - it has a value per scene.
 
Dave Merrill said:
Sorry if I'm being thick.

Nothing in the current controller model lets you assign a controller to a parameter, and without doing anything else, now the control has separate settings in each scene.

Or maybe it does, and i just never thought about it that way, so i didn't use it that way.

I don't get it.
Click to expand...

The fact that you're confused about scene controllers seems to me to be pretty convincing evidence that the UI could be improved :).
 
Don't forget there's a limit on the number of modifiers a preset can use. IIRC it's 32 for the Axe III and 24 for the FM9 and FM3. There's a lot of overhead if you use a lot of modifiers too. If you get too much changing at one time, the CPU usage can spike quite a bit an can lead to instability or even audio stops if it's bad enough.

It's a trade off. Scene controllers give you transitional control over changing values between scenes but at a CPU cost. Channels let you specify different settings per scene, but more channels per block would mean more RAM usage and larger presets to store and load at boot time. You have to find some balance between the two which is most likely why we have the number of channels and scene controllers we currently have.
 
unix-guy said:
That's exactly what a Scene Controller does - it has a value per scene.
Click to expand...
Yes, but the range of values doesn't automatically adjust to match the range of the thing you're controlling. For instance, if you're controlling pan, it should be -100 to +100, if it's gain it should be 0-100, BMT -10 - +10 if i remember right, etc.

IMO it's important that you can just set the control the same way you normally would, and see its settings like you normally would, not in controller-speak 0-100% for everything. The only difference should be that it has separate settings per scene.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom