thcilnnahoj.
Zynewave@swindus wrote:
There is a problem with sending MIDI clock/start/stop. Podium sends MIDI messages to the MIDI clock enabled output but the external device does not start playback (in my case a MIDI hardware sequencer). With Reaper or Studio One the external device slaves perfect to the sequencer playback.
The problem is that it is not implemented. Only the timing clock is transmitted, which can be used to sync e.g. external delay units to the Podium tempo. Start/stop messages are not transmitted. With my current todo list, it’s going to be a long time before I have time to add support for this.
Pigini@Zynewave wrote:
The problem is that it is not implemented. Only the timing clock is transmitted, which can be used to sync e.g. external delay units to the Podium tempo. Start/stop messages are not transmitted. With my current todo list, it’s going to be a long time before I have time to add support for this.
Are Start/stop messages difficult to implement? It seems such a basic thing. I would have thought it was just overlooked at the time, but not that it was hard to do.
Zynewave@Pigini wrote:
@Zynewave wrote:
The problem is that it is not implemented. Only the timing clock is transmitted, which can be used to sync e.g. external delay units to the Podium tempo. Start/stop messages are not transmitted. With my current todo list, it’s going to be a long time before I have time to add support for this.
Are Start/stop messages difficult to implement? It seems such a basic thing. I would have thought it was just overlooked at the time, but not that it was hard to do.
Not particularly difficult. It’s just that there are so many non-difficult things on my todo list. Lately it feels like that for every feature I implement, two new requests are added to the list. I’ll have to put some of the requests that are only relevant to a small percentage of Podium users on a todo-in-the-future list.
ZynewaveBeta 4:
Mouse wheel can be used to adjust gain, pan, send and parameter faders in the mixer. Holding the Shift key will fine adjust. Gain faders are adjusted in 1 dB steps, and 0.1 dB fine steps.
Ctrl+clicking a parameter fader in the mixer will set it to the default value.
thcilnnahoj@Zynewave wrote:
[…] I’ll have to put some of the requests that are only relevant to a small percentage of Podium users on a todo-in-the-future list.
I suspect this includes improvements to surround sound stuff… 🙁 😉
Haven’t tried beta 4 yet (but am about to), but I wonder if mouse wheel support for faders and such isn’t one of those things that should be kept purely optional.
MelodyMan@thcilnnahoj wrote:
Haven’t tried beta 4 yet (but am about to), but I wonder if mouse wheel support for faders and such isn’t one of those things that should be kept purely optional.
I find this new mouse-wheel behaviour very convenient. I like it.
thcilnnahojYeah, me too. 🙂 I just think it could lead to accidents for people who don’t want to use it but don’t get a choice.
Frits, have you thought about using some sort of logarithmic scale for mouse-wheel fader adjustments? You can try it on knobs in FabFilter plug-ins – I find it to be super-comfortable!
Also, shouldn’t scrolling up on a pan control move it left instead of right…? After all, the highest (top) value in pan curve sequences and on pan parameter faders is 100% L.
Zynewave@thcilnnahoj wrote:
Frits, have you thought about using some sort of logarithmic scale for mouse-wheel fader adjustments? You can try it on knobs in FabFilter plug-ins – I find it to be super-comfortable!
I could just remove the code I put in to make it snap to full dB steps. I thought it convenient that each wheel click adjusted a fixed dB. Easy to set the fader to -3 or -6 dB for example. Do anyone prefer the wheel to adjust in proportion to the fader range, rather than in dB steps?
Also, shouldn’t scrolling up on a pan control move it left instead of right…? After all, the highest (top) value in pan curve sequences and on pan parameter faders is 100% L.
There are pros and cons of both methods. The reason I chose down to be left, is because it then matches how you adjust horizontal gain and send sliders. I think it would be weird that using the wheel over a pan slider would make the knob move in the opposite direction than gain/send sliders. Perhaps it is the pan parameter that should have L/R swapped :-k
Trancit@Zynewave wrote:
@thcilnnahoj wrote:
Frits, have you thought about using some sort of logarithmic scale for mouse-wheel fader adjustments? You can try it on knobs in FabFilter plug-ins – I find it to be super-comfortable!
I could just remove the code I put in to make it snap to full dB steps. I thought it convenient that each wheel click adjusted a fixed dB. Easy to set the fader to -3 or -6 dB for example. Do anyone prefer the wheel to adjust in proportion to the fader range, rather than in dB steps?
I have to say again: For me, mousewheel support should do some kind of finetuning, while dragging a fader with the mouse is to do the bigger changes…
To easily set faders to e.g. – 3db or -6 db for me is a job for either a keyboard shortcut or for another modifier plus mouseclick or mousewheel, but not a job for the “normal” mousewheel workflow…
My answer is definetely: no…
Trancit
thcilnnahoj@Zynewave wrote:
Also, shouldn’t scrolling up on a pan control move it left instead of right…? After all, the highest (top) value in pan curve sequences and on pan parameter faders is 100% L.
There are pros and cons of both methods. The reason I chose down to be left, is because it then matches how you adjust horizontal gain and send sliders. I think it would be weird that using the wheel over a pan slider would make the knob move in the opposite direction than gain/send sliders. Perhaps it is the pan parameter that should have L/R swapped :-k
Ah, I didn’t think about that… Swapping left and right now will take some getting used to, but if it’s for the sake of consistency, I’m OK with it.
As for the mouse-wheel… how about a few little configuration options with which you could enable/disable wheel support on faders and such, and let the user choose the step size? There’s also the possibility to add some acceleration that would increase the step size.
Um, sorry about that. 😉
@Zynewave wrote:
Lately it feels like that for every feature I implement, two new requests are added to the list.