interface builder vs control panel

[XpiR]

Sending a module to the interface builder makes it disappear from the control panel (or I missed something ?).
This makes a bit difficult to work back on a patch as the modules in the IB are not visible in the control panel.
I would use the IB if the IB modules could remain in the control panel too...

[sephult]

That's true, I haven't fully picked up the IB use. I guess preparation in the racks might be essential. Still I have not got the point in respects to the grid and in relation to the rack setup. I agree with you in regards to keeping the patch in both, however I think the point was to take a complex patch, just put several parameters in the IB and maybe not the whole patch in the IB if it was for performance? Not for sure.

One thing I thought of is the IB is useful when laying out the patch, as when you unlock the elements in the rack view all racks become moveable and bleed through the patch window, possibly the IB is what it says....Interface Builder to make it easier to modify?

-S

[XpiR]

For me the IB is the stage version of your patch, a simplified graphic interface for your performance. Cool idea, when you need only a few controls on stage. But I'd like them to remain on my control panel for the modifications...

[Tackla]

I've been using it quite a bit lately actually.

The way I do it is I send the patch itself to the IB and it ends up being a sort of a container for the interface while allowing me to dive into patching windows without going back to rack view.

I think it's a nice way to design the patch and the performance interface side by side.

Also when you send the patch there you can still modulate the parameters in the grid, whereas when you send individual control elements or containers they don't appear in the list.