axifist
Experienced
tl;dr:
I think an additional FC-18 would make sense. Not for me, I would definitely love the FC-12 if I had a III, but thinking about how others use their controllers I see problems, especially since the III is obviously intended to be used only with the FCs.
Ever since the III and the FCs were announced, I was wondering how they would work. Then we got the info, that the FCs aren't real standalone midi controllers, but controllers for the III being configured in the III. This approach has big advantages, because the III always knows about what's going on on the FCs, so to speak.
Sidenote:
To show you that I have some insight in designing midi controllers, I did my own, as you can see here in pictures and here in code. My approach was similar to the FCs, but the other way around: My controller is in charge of everything, it's where I configure setlists, songs, scenes etc. And it's for the Ultra, but that doesn't matter.
So, I'm not a professional, but trust me, I thought about midi controllers a lot the past months creating this thing in my leisure time!
Ok, so when I read about the FCs further now that they are released, I immediately liked the option to assign switches per preset! That's one thing the combination II+MFC isn't capable of, because the two don't know about each other.
But:
Will everyone be happy with the FCs? That's what this whole post is supposed to be about.
So, what will MFC power users, who need many fixed switches, do when switching to III+FC?
Of course they'll want the bigger one, the FC-12. Problem is, it has far less switches than the MFC. Ok, 15-12=3. The difference seems small, but remember, you'll probably need two switches for changing presets, so in fact you only got 10 switches left for sound changes. What if you want to control scenes + channels too? Not many left for assigning to effects. Sure, the MFC has similar problems, but remember, channels is a new and additional feature! The III offers more flexibility, which you'll want to be able to access with the FCs.
edit: Good point by @unix-guy, you can e.g. change presets by long-pressing switches. But still, for switching e.g. effects, channels, scenes this option isn't really optimal.
Of course I don't know how people will use the FCs, but I'm sure many will run out of switches, if they want a "One setup to rule them all" which includes everything they'll ever need. I'm looking especially at cover band artists. The FC-12 alone might not be enough.
So what are the options for those users?
Obviously the III is designed to be used with the FCs only. There's no Faslink 1 support and the midi connectors are stripped down versions of what the I and II offered. Another question: Does the midi input at least support bi-directional communication? I don't know, but I suspect not. Luckily there are options built by users like @oson00, but those options clearly weren't intended by Fractal and remain a hack.
All the more I see it as important for Fractal to deliver FCs which work for as many users as well as possible. It's a difficult task for sure. But since the MFC isn't supposed to be used with the III there should now be an option available for people who just love how the MFC works + why not some new neat features making it even better than the MFC.
Please don't get me wrong! I'm really glad that Fractal now offers smaller controllers which deliver great flexibility. I just think limiting the available controllers to a small and medium sized isn't enough.
Conclusion
I wrote this post to tell you my thoughts about the FCs, about whether or not they are capable of satisfying a wide enough range of users who all want different setups. That's why I imagine there could be a real desire for an FC-18. No external power adapter required, no overly wide or high floor board, but still many switches like the MFC.
p.s.:
Is any of you guys an MFC power user who could give feedback about how you would do a similar setup with the FC(s)? Or will you just change your habits?
I think an additional FC-18 would make sense. Not for me, I would definitely love the FC-12 if I had a III, but thinking about how others use their controllers I see problems, especially since the III is obviously intended to be used only with the FCs.
Here's why
Ever since the III and the FCs were announced, I was wondering how they would work. Then we got the info, that the FCs aren't real standalone midi controllers, but controllers for the III being configured in the III. This approach has big advantages, because the III always knows about what's going on on the FCs, so to speak.
Sidenote:
To show you that I have some insight in designing midi controllers, I did my own, as you can see here in pictures and here in code. My approach was similar to the FCs, but the other way around: My controller is in charge of everything, it's where I configure setlists, songs, scenes etc. And it's for the Ultra, but that doesn't matter.
So, I'm not a professional, but trust me, I thought about midi controllers a lot the past months creating this thing in my leisure time!
Ok, so when I read about the FCs further now that they are released, I immediately liked the option to assign switches per preset! That's one thing the combination II+MFC isn't capable of, because the two don't know about each other.
But:
Will everyone be happy with the FCs? That's what this whole post is supposed to be about.
- As far as I can see there is one option of usage for the MFC
- Every switch has its function(s) assigned, never to be changed, at least not during a show. That's why it makes sense for the MFC to have quite a lot of switches (15), which can be configured freely.
- The FCs allow two options
- The first option is to use it the way the MFC was used. This seems completely reasonable. I'm sure most III users switched from a II+MFC setup, which they perfected for themselves and got used to over the years. Many need all 15 switches and don't want their function ever to change. Everything has to be just where it belongs, just like a floor board of stomp boxes.
Others (like me) never really needed that many switches and could live with less. But the MFC is quite small, so no real biggie!
- The second option is to use it dynamically. Every preset on the III includes a different setup for the switches. Their functionality doesn't need to be guessed, because there's a display indicating the current function. Well done!
But still, in a live situation it's important to KNOW which switch does what. You don't have the time to read through the switches to find which one to hit next. So I think MANY users wouldn't want this option.
But to me it seems like the FCs aren't meant to be used like that, especially the FC-6. Such a small controller needs to be more flexible than a big one, otherwise 6 switches are ... like ... nothing!
So, what will MFC power users, who need many fixed switches, do when switching to III+FC?
Of course they'll want the bigger one, the FC-12. Problem is, it has far less switches than the MFC. Ok, 15-12=3. The difference seems small, but remember, you'll probably need two switches for changing presets, so in fact you only got 10 switches left for sound changes. What if you want to control scenes + channels too? Not many left for assigning to effects. Sure, the MFC has similar problems, but remember, channels is a new and additional feature! The III offers more flexibility, which you'll want to be able to access with the FCs.
edit: Good point by @unix-guy, you can e.g. change presets by long-pressing switches. But still, for switching e.g. effects, channels, scenes this option isn't really optimal.
Of course I don't know how people will use the FCs, but I'm sure many will run out of switches, if they want a "One setup to rule them all" which includes everything they'll ever need. I'm looking especially at cover band artists. The FC-12 alone might not be enough.
So what are the options for those users?
- Both FCs allow 4 external switches.
Question to you guys: Is it possible to assign LEDs to external switches? Or are those switches limited the way they are on the MFC? So adding 4 more switches to the FC-12 might work, but it's not a perfect solution. I e.g. bought the addon @Roadrunner builds. Very well built, but I wouldn't buy it again, I've never used it. The missing LEDs are a dealbreaker for me, especially live. Didn't see that coming when I bought it unfortunately...
- The FCs can be daisy-chained. Alright, great! So you can just buy a second one. But here I see two problems:
- How to place the two FCs? Side by side or one in front of the other?
- To get an MFC-like setup you'd want to place them in front of each other. In that case you'd have to place them at different heights to be able to reach the first row of switches of the FC further away from you. This might be ok for some, but I'd say the higher you have to lift your foot the more wobbly you get. Not good in live situations, especially if you combine music with sports
To place them at a similar height is problematic because of the first row being bevelled. You'd have to place them further apart, which makes the floor board way too long and you'll get wobbly again.
- The best option seems to be to use two FCs and place them side by side. But well, now the setup is at least 79,5cm (31.4") (FC-12 + FC-6) or even 102,4cm (40.2") wide (2x FC-12). This might be problematic especially for guitarists who also sing. They can't move that far to the right and left. And for guys like me who mostly play small stages it's also very problematic, because there's just no room for such a wide floor board.
- To get an MFC-like setup you'd want to place them in front of each other. In that case you'd have to place them at different heights to be able to reach the first row of switches of the FC further away from you. This might be ok for some, but I'd say the higher you have to lift your foot the more wobbly you get. Not good in live situations, especially if you combine music with sports
- Now if you decide to use two (or even more) FCs, there's another problem: Only the first FC will get powered by the III. Question to you guys: Why this limitation??? It shouldn't be a technical issue, the FCs cannot require that much current. Also by design the daisy-chaining is limited to 4 units, so the required power is limited and definitely low. For me personally it would be a real dealbreaker to be forced to have another cable go to the front of stage and to be forced to have a power adapter in my 19" case. This I really don't get!
- How to place the two FCs? Side by side or one in front of the other?
Obviously the III is designed to be used with the FCs only. There's no Faslink 1 support and the midi connectors are stripped down versions of what the I and II offered. Another question: Does the midi input at least support bi-directional communication? I don't know, but I suspect not. Luckily there are options built by users like @oson00, but those options clearly weren't intended by Fractal and remain a hack.
All the more I see it as important for Fractal to deliver FCs which work for as many users as well as possible. It's a difficult task for sure. But since the MFC isn't supposed to be used with the III there should now be an option available for people who just love how the MFC works + why not some new neat features making it even better than the MFC.
Please don't get me wrong! I'm really glad that Fractal now offers smaller controllers which deliver great flexibility. I just think limiting the available controllers to a small and medium sized isn't enough.
Conclusion
I wrote this post to tell you my thoughts about the FCs, about whether or not they are capable of satisfying a wide enough range of users who all want different setups. That's why I imagine there could be a real desire for an FC-18. No external power adapter required, no overly wide or high floor board, but still many switches like the MFC.
p.s.:
Is any of you guys an MFC power user who could give feedback about how you would do a similar setup with the FC(s)? Or will you just change your habits?
Last edited:
