Cliff, you're absolutely right that I can't say whether you saw the firmware image size trending towards a value that the Mk 1 units could not support. My unintended insult was a result of 7+ years of observing your attention to detail in all matters. If the lack of conditional logic was an oversight when the feature was implemented, it is very much out of line with your history of anticipating things, particularly if you had noticed the increased firmware image size.
Like I said, there's nothing in the XL that appeals to me enough to make the change. That include upgrades. I was just observing that it was out of character for you to implement a feature without anticipating the side effects, particularly as catastrophic as this appears.
Actually, Cliff indicated otherwise in a response on the 'Quantum Rev 4.01 Public Beta' thread:
...The ROM is full. I even went so far several firmwares ago to write a compression/decompression routine to fit more stuff in it but now we've reached the limit.
...followed by this post:
Firmware 12 was where the compression was introduced. Note the reduction in size from 11 to 12. So, as one can see, we are approaching the limit.
If I remember correctly the AxeFX II Mk I/II series were built with what was deemed at the time to be more than enough boot ROM memory to support further firmware development for the foreseeable future (as was with the AxeFX Ultra before it). The modeling has become far more complex over time, and I'm assuming at a pace faster than anticipated. Such is the nature of developing code. The XL was released at some point for a variety of reasons (some hardware upgrades and added user memory for presets and cab IR's). A larger boot ROM would have been a given if the limits of the Mk I/II's boot ROM were already visible on the horizon.
You being upset does not equate to a lack of conditional logic on Cliff's part. The 'Modeling Version' feature was added upon request from folks who had/have a legitimate use for it. Your observation that it was "out of character" for Cliff to "implement a feature without anticipating the side effects, particularly as catastrophic as this appears" has no basis. The use of the word 'catastrophic' to describe a flash memory limit that marks the end of free stuff is just drama. Hurricane Katrina was catastrophic. This is just a disappointing situation for some Mk I/II users. HUGE difference.
What's to say that some other added parameter you make use of (maybe something like the selectable tube type in the preamp and power amp tabs, or maybe the parameters added for further control over dynamics in the Amp block, or perhaps the in-amp Tremolo effect, or the Saturation Switch, etc. - whatever it may be) adds to the size of all future firmware files, and maybe more so than the 'Modeling Version' parameter. Should a feature that you use be removed, and should its addition to the Amp block be deemed a 'lack of conditional logic' and an oversight' on Cliff's part simply because someone else is all worked up about the now nearly full boot ROM in the Mk I/II platform?
Rhetorical question - the answer is no.
All of the continued AxeFX II firmware developments Cliff has made to date have greatly improved what was already a fantastic DSP/Modeling platform. All of that development has contributed to the ever increasing size of firmware updates. All of that development has been given freely to all AxeFX II owners. FAS could have monetized firmware updates but, despite baseless, rude posts like yours quoted above from users who didn't get what they wanted, Cliff continues to give away this work/time/effort. Your post comes off like 'How come they got what they wanted and I can't have what I want? It's all your fault Cliff!' Actually, I can think of no other way to perceive your written outburst.
You and I may not have any use for this feature but that doesn't make the feature anything like an oversight. The following post presents enough for any objective reader to understand why the 'Modeling Version' parameter should not be removed:
http://forum.fractalaudio.com/threa...-to-free-up-space.119983/page-18#post-1430431
If removing the 'Modeling Version' Parameter is going to have a negative impact on users going forward then I really can't find fault in Cliff's decision to leave this parameter in place.
We're all adults here. Let's act like it.
