hello,
benjamin+lalo+bsork : the master team?
For you problem, the real question is: how often do you need those features?
Don't forget that any 'hard implementation' has a cost in CPU, memory, etc.
For all this special cases, I have created the interface control objects. Track mixer, global volume, etc...
All those modules have a big advantage: they are flexible and they cost almost no CPU (they are virtual copy of interface objects).
Hello, benjamin+lalo+bsork : the master team?
For you problem, the real question is: how often do you need those features?
Don't forget that any 'hard implementation' has a cost in CPU, memory, etc.
For all this special cases, I have created the interface control objects. Track mixer, global volume, etc...
All those modules have a big advantage: they are flexible and they cost almost no CPU (they are virtual copy of interface objects).
Actually I had totally forgotten about these modules, after digging a bit in the "interface control" folder, I've definitely found treasures!!! Once again I think usine is really amazing and full of surprises!! Great!
Yes, I agree! More simple this way.Another question: don't you think that the global remote setup should be totally independent of patch functionalities them self?
Well, now that I have these interface control modules, that's what I'm gonna do, that's easy!!Isn?t it better (conceptually) to create a patch as an ?insert? to implement that?
Gonna check that!In the add-ons there is a sub-patch with can be very useful (I use it a lot): Kitchen pack/ autoscale. It scales automatically the input signal to fit to the output.
Rgds,
B.
Statistics: Posted by bmoussay — 14 Jan 2007, 00:36
]]>
I mean as an insert in the master section.Isn?t it better (conceptually) to create a patch as an ?insert? to implement that?
Good suggestion: option "key global / only on selected track"
and also "midi global/only on selected track"...for consistency
Statistics: Posted by lalo — 12 Jan 2007, 10:18
]]>
Isn?t it better (conceptually) to create a patch as an ?insert? to implement that?
I mean as an insert in the master section.Good suggestion: option "key global / only on selected track"
Statistics: Posted by senso — 12 Jan 2007, 10:13
]]>
For you problem, the real question is: how often do you need those features?
Don't forget that any 'hard implementation' has a cost in CPU, memory, etc.
i understand..this is a really good point...Don't forget that any 'hard implementation' has a cost in CPU, memory, etc.
..but sometimes (quite often) having some hard (optional in the setup panel for example) implementation saves a lot of time a t patching sessions...
and they are really really useful and appreciatedFor all this special cases, I have created the interface control objects. Track mixer, global volume, etc...
All those modules have a big advantage: they are flexible and they cost almost no CPU (they are virtual copy of interface objects).
i think the most important thing is often the "coherence"...Another question: don't you think that the global remote setup should be totally independent of patch functionalities them self?
for example the midi learn works always regardless the active track
the key learn instead works only when the track where the control is , is active...
i think there's should be option for midi learn and key learn to be "globally active" or "active when track is active"
what do you mean?Isn?t it better (conceptually) to create a patch as an ?insert? to implement that?
thanx for the infoIn the add-ons there is a sub-patch with can be very useful (I use it a lot): Kitchen pack/ autoscale. It scales automatically the input signal to fit to the output.
have a good day guys
thanx again
lalo
Statistics: Posted by lalo — 12 Jan 2007, 10:00
]]>
For you problem, the real question is: how often do you need those features?
Don't forget that any 'hard implementation' has a cost in CPU, memory, etc.
For all this special cases, I have created the interface control objects. Track mixer, global volume, etc...
All those modules have a big advantage: they are flexible and they cost almost no CPU (they are virtual copy of interface objects).
Another question: don't you think that the global remote setup should be totally independent of patch functionalities them self?
Isn?t it better (conceptually) to create a patch as an ?insert? to implement that?
In the add-ons there is a sub-patch with can be very useful (I use it a lot): Kitchen pack/ autoscale. It scales automatically the input signal to fit to the output.
Statistics: Posted by senso — 12 Jan 2007, 09:22
]]>
I have a controller where min/max values can be set, but the drawback of limiting the sent CC values is that the control gets coarser.
Statistics: Posted by bsork — 12 Jan 2007, 08:55
]]>
Statistics: Posted by lalo — 12 Jan 2007, 08:36
]]>
Would it be possible, for Global remote, to assign a "range" of response for "fader" objects.
Let's take the following example:
- I have a basic midi controller, where a knob sends values between 0 to 127.
- I map it to "track 1 volume", but actually I would love the volume to change ONLY beetween -30dB to 0 dB (instead of the full range from -80dB to +12dB).
Actually I use form the moment "workarounds" (for the above situation a sub patch with "midi in -> small circuit to do the scaling-> Audio volume" for example), or even simpler, on some midi hardware controllers you can do this scaling on the controller itself, that will send from 30 to 100 for instance), but I think it would be great for Usine to have this option.
What do you think?
Rgds,
B.
Statistics: Posted by bmoussay — 11 Jan 2007, 21:40
]]>