naming user IR's on the Axe FX

jb70

jb70

Experienced
hey guys,
i'm fairly new to this stuff but am having a fun time trying out clawfingers IR's. i have 2 questions.

1. is there a way to give names to the user IR's in the axe fx? or will they remain labeled as "user 1", "user 2", etc...

2. can we only download 10 IR's to our axe fx's?

thanks,

jack
 
that's what i thought. thanks dk. which 10 do you guys think are the most essential to have?
 
Yes it would.

AlbertA's renamer could do that before, but could only change the letters, not add any, so the names were limited to 6 or 7 letters before. However, with newer firmware only the "user"part was left as "changeable" -> four letters. since four letters is as good as useless for naming IRs, Albert removed the capability.

Maybe if Cliff w(/c)ould allow more letters in the names again...
 
GuitarDojo said:
Clawfingers EAW480 Off/ON Axis MesaV30 fo sho!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

that's weird. i downloaded both the line 6 eaw480 and the marshall eaw480 patches but didn't see the mesa eaw480 IR's. do you know where i can download those? thanks.

jb
 
I think cliff optimized the code so the term "User" is only coded once instead of 10X. This was probably done as part of making room for a feature on the standard.
 
Dutch said:
Yes it would.

AlbertA's renamer could do that before, but could only change the letters, not add any, so the names were limited to 6 or 7 letters before. However, with newer firmware only the "user"part was left as "changeable" -> four letters. since four letters is as good as useless for naming IRs, Albert removed the capability.

Maybe if Cliff w(/c)ould allow more letters in the names again...
Click to expand...

What Java said. The "User" string is shared now, before all the cab names were stored as "User 1", "User 2" etc... Now there's only one string "User" not 10. The names are probably generated dynamically with an index.
 
Ah. I knew there was something about that "user"-thing.

Must get my memory checked. All that partying...

What was I saying again?
 
javajunkie said:
I think cliff optimized the code so the term "User" is only coded once instead of 10X. This was probably done as part of making room for a feature on the standard.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but things like this limit the ultra as well... iit's not very cool that the ultra is limited in ways like this because of issues with the standard even though people payed $550 extra for the ultra.
 
JoshuaLogan said:
javajunkie said:
I think cliff optimized the code so the term "User" is only coded once instead of 10X. This was probably done as part of making room for a feature on the standard.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but things like this limit the ultra as well... iit's not very cool that the ultra is limited in ways like this because of issues with the standard even though people payed $550 extra for the ultra.
Click to expand...
You aren't supposed to be modifying the firmware anyway, so it's a moot point.
 
scarr said:
JoshuaLogan said:
javajunkie said:
I think cliff optimized the code so the term "User" is only coded once instead of 10X. This was probably done as part of making room for a feature on the standard.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but things like this limit the ultra as well... iit's not very cool that the ultra is limited in ways like this because of issues with the standard even though people payed $550 extra for the ultra.
Click to expand...
You aren't supposed to be modifying the firmware anyway, so it's a moot point.
Click to expand...

That is an extremely good point :D
 
danielodland said:
Wouldn't the problem still be there if Cliff was to fix this? If so, I don't see the point of the last two replies..
Click to expand...

the point is at this time cliff does not support altering the firmware, which is what is required for renaming the cabs.
 
I see=) But I was wondering, is this something that Cliff can fix, or is it a problem due to memory limitations or something?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom