Conquistador's Forum Page

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 211 through 225 (of 1,598 total)

← 1 2 3 … 14 15 16 … 105 106 107 →

August 13, 2009 at 23:06 in reply to: Preview 2.20: Various UI improvements #16092

Conquistador
Participant

@Zynewave wrote:

Good point. Since the navigator has been added, it’s no longer needed to use the timeline ruler to slide. I’ve changed the default to be cursor grab instead.

A few things…

1. While the Navigator is very useful it still does not have any handles on either side of it. This is a much needed UI change. It’s not obvious how to move it. Could you please give serious consideration to some sort of indicator or similar to both sides of the Navigator before 2.20 is finished **please**. It *really* needs it. Even a small semi transparent handle on either side would be enough.

2. Also the horizontal slider…I really would like to see that back as a default. I use the Navigator but not that much. It’s not ideal for every horizontal task IMO. Why remove the horizontal bar? Puzzling IMO. :-s

I have some ideas for a new feature that would include a solution for global SMR, so maybe I’ll work on that for 2.21.

That would be great thanks!!!

August 13, 2009 at 22:25 in reply to: Podiums Hierarchy (please vote)… #16091

Conquistador
Participant

@namunger wrote:

It always seems odd to me when someone says, “I wish Poduim was more like DAW X”. I see Podium as the alternative to DAW X. If I wanted DAW X, that’s the one I would use. I know, some will say “take what works in DAW X, Y and Z and put them together”, but I like the fact that Podium has its’ own way of doing things, for those of us that don’t like X, Y, or Z.

Yes but an attempt to simplify Podiums user friendliness is harmless. 🙂 Even if that means using a set of features from another app as an example. In the past there have been many references to DAW x,y or z in preview threads right here on this forum when adding features to Podium. 😉

You can use Product A (certain features of it) as an example for Product B without wanting Product A I find nothing odd about that. 🙂

@Slomo wrote:

It’s a bit odd to want this unique program to become some sort of a collected sum of other apps.

Really? 😉

In many ways Podium already is.

Frits would have had to stop with the idea for Podium going no further than his head a decade or so ago to avoid his creation being a sum of other apps to a great degree. It is the presentation of what Podium offers that is different in some ways but its similarities to other existing apps is far more than its differences.

Notice how many of the FR’s on the future forum already exist in many other apps? Nothing wrong with that but Podium will increasingly be the sum of other apps features and vice versa no doubt (for the most part) while presenting its features in its own unique way which is fine IMO.

Examples?

Audio features
Midi features

e.t.c

There is a huge amount of crossover between apps. It cannot be avoided. But Podium is a very clever presentation of many other features found in other apps. Better in many respects IMO.

The new Editor Bar in 2.20 is an excellent example.

Want to see how it works in reverse? Look at Presonus Studio 1. There are so many similarities with Podium so really feature crossover cannot be avoided one way or another. Or one host being to some degree or another being the sum of another similar host.

PDM will never be the new Tracktion…I never said I want that. I bought Tracktion ages ago. I don’t use it anymore. Refinement of certain Features with consideration given to some of those already in Tracktion is what I am asking of Frits here. 🙂

I would not want Frits to ever run into the delay compensation issues and the complex Racks that Tracktion has had. No thanks. But there is plenty there to consider for Podium in its own unique way.

August 13, 2009 at 21:58 in reply to: Podiums Hierarchy (please vote)… #16090

Conquistador
Participant

@Mike G wrote:

Regarding signal flow…
I think the “Arrows” show the signal flow, they are not quite arrows more like triangles poking out of the tracks.
Maybe this could be emphasised?
Maybe by actually drawing a line with arrows to show signal flow… or something like that?
edit: sorry thcilnnahoj just realised you already said this

Some sort of consistency to the three key views in Podium would help. A mock up would help here but I need time to put that together properly.

@UncleAge wrote:

Me, I will always appreciate the simplicity and depth of Tracktion.

Same here.

What is it about designers and coders products that is so attractive I wonder? Jules was a designer and a very good one. Just like Frits. Features with style I guess, but even the best designers cannot avoid the need for refinement.

I would say both devs have done much to change the way people think about Music software.

See, everyone wants the added features but they want the devs to figure out how to keep them hidden until needed. For me, Tracktion did that. And to be honest I have never gotten a thing from the “hierarchy” layout of Podium. I use Podium because it’s always been stable and interface is comfortable to look at for long periods of time (not that overly bright crayon appearance of Tracktion). And I wanted to support a dev that I thought was doing an outstanding job (even if I didn’t always agree with the direction that app was taking). In the end, I just always worked around the hierarchy part.

Pretty much my thinking as well. I would say with 2.20 and its focus there is certainly a significant step in the right direction.

Do I love the interface and workflow in T3? Absolutely! But I don’t want either app to try and be like the other.

Neither do I. There is a huge amount of crossover on features between hosts. Some ideas are worth consideration at least. No need to copy the entire app. Would make more sense to get the app being copied. 🙂

I think Podium has come a long way. What I’d really like to know is where does Frits see it going, over time?

A question for Frits I think. Plenty of clues on these forums though.

August 12, 2009 at 18:42 in reply to: Preview 2.20: Various UI improvements #16055

Conquistador
Participant

@Zynewave wrote:

The editor bar is an optional element that can be placed in any toolbar. As long as thcilnnahoj does not use the “load default setup” command, his old setup behaves exactly as before, with key shortcuts and all.

Cool. Does that solve your earlier problem/request thcilnnahoj? Looks like it does.

Well, then just modify the bottom transport toolbar(s) in the “editor” and “mixer” profiles to match the “big transport” toolbars, delete the “tracks” profile, rename “big transport” to “tracks” and move it to the start of the list.

Ok cheers I’ll try that out. 8)

August 12, 2009 at 16:47 in reply to: Podiums Hierarchy (please vote)… #16045

Conquistador
Participant

@thcilnnahoj wrote:

Conquistador: Actually, I don’t think it needs explanation… I did explain it because you only presented one side of the coin, showing that it’s illogical.
As soon as you know how it’s supposed to be looked at it becomes clear, I think. To me, and since he made it, I guess to Frits as well, it was obvious from the first look.

Its boiling down to a difference of opinion on that which is fine. I really do not think that is obvious to most people. Not nearly.

If you were to use the view from the GP, then there would either still have to be some kind of container around the track and its effects or, probably the better solution, a little more space inbetween, like in the actual GP. Otherwise it would look like the tracks are flowing into each other. Another problem with that is the signal flow arrows – in the GP there’s only ever one track chain leading into the master track. It would look highly strange if a single track would flow upwards into some effects, and suddenly the last effect/send track in the chain flows to the left!?

Either way the views are not consistent. I would say the mixer view maybe or similar would work with tracks. Maybe with thinner space between them if possible, but IMO it can and really should be refined for consistency.

I guess it can be even more simplified, but if you make it work then the question is still if that’s enough to get people like your friend to understand the ‘Podium flow’ – the way you proposed would still be backwards to people who assume that the signal flow goes downward like they’re used to from other sequencers.

True but progress of any sort is better than the current state. It will help. It may not solve every issue UI related but little by little is still progress.:)

I’m certainly not arguing that you’re wrong or that there shouldn’t be any changes. Maybe I am even starting to agree with you. If it can be made easier without clutter (as the extended mode kind of became with many tracks), then you have my blessing. I don’t necessarily think it needs change, though. That’s why I voted ‘none of the above’ in the first place. 🙂

Well I do appreciate the input so far from all on this thread. Its a refinement that I am asking for but how really its done, will be decided by Frits. He might agree with the idea he may not. 🙂

August 12, 2009 at 16:38 in reply to: Preview 2.20: Various UI improvements #16042

Conquistador
Participant

@Zynewave wrote:

Sorry I did not anticipate this. It happens because 2.20 now automatically detects the profile type by looking at the regions included in the profile, and so it no longer writes the profile type to the Podium.ini file. Loading this Podium.ini in 2.19 will then not supply the profile type that 2.19 still needs. I’ll mention this warning in the release note.

Thats it. That was the cause then. Thanks for the clarification. 🙂

There is an auto-scroll option in the BB export dialog, where I can specify a smaller area of the video and keep the mouse in the center. I’ve just tried this, but it does not work well in this video where the mouse is moving all over the screen. I can use it if I create a video for a feature that concentrates on a small area of the screen.

Ok cool. Just thought I would mention it. 😉

August 12, 2009 at 16:34 in reply to: Preview 2.20: Various UI improvements #16041

Conquistador
Participant

@Zynewave wrote:

2.20 will not change your current setup. You’ll need to use “load default setup” to get the new layout with the editor bar.

Yes the final release and indeed other previous releases don’t change the default set up but I was using one of the 2.20 betas with a full 2.19 install on the same PC.

The new editor bar is just an element you can add to any toolbar, so the remaining toolbar at 2:10 in the video is the toolbar that holds the editor bar.

Ok…I get it now. Thanks. 🙂

August 12, 2009 at 16:23 in reply to: Preview 2.20: Various UI improvements #16038

Conquistador
Participant

I am really having fun with these buttons… So easy to switch views and every thing is so neat and tidy not sure of any other way to put it. 😛

Some more suggestions..

1. I think the Editor bar has huge potential beyond its current implementation. User configurable buttons perhaps that open more than one view.

2. Save Bar: This lets you save a default Editor Bar config that you can load up in any project giving you different Editor bar states for different arrangements in the same project for instance. This option could appear at the bottom of the current right click menu for the Editor bar buttons.

3. Surely Frits this could be extended in some way to configure the tracks view. (IIRC there are ways to change the tracks view in the Editor profile???) Configure your track state (look and feel of the tracks hierarchy) and right click to save? …see point 2.

4. Lock a button. This would allow for instance the Big time view to be seen while a user clicks on other buttons in the Editor Bar. Available via right clicking on the button. Would love that.

The Editor Profile is now far more accessible so quite a few possibilities have now opened up.

August 12, 2009 at 16:14 in reply to: Preview 2.20: Various UI improvements #16037

Conquistador
Participant

@thcilnnahoj wrote:

Looks like I’m the only one who has some gripes. 😉

thcilnnahoj… 🙂

I think at some point or another each of us have found ourselves on the other side of what seemingly everyone else wants. It just showcases how differently we like to work and how Podium can accommodate different workflows… As for 2.20…maybe some sort of optional behavior can be suggested to suite your workflow?

Here’s a question to everyone: How is your personal workflow going to be like now – will you switch over from the Tracks page to the Editor and Mixer page only when you need them

Likely. Very likely here. I would not mind the Big transport visible all the time though…

, or will you stay on those pages and minimize the editor/mixer (F keys) when you’re not using them. If it’s the latter, then what is the point of the Tracks page anyway? It can’t be those few pixels you gain from removing the little editor/mixer bar. Or do you not use keyboard shortcuts at all?

Nope. Don’t use them. I would guess most users would not know what keyboard shortcuts to use when trying the demo. This way they can *see* what to do quickly without reading anything about the features. It’s just too obvious now. Can’t miss it. A master stroke of a feature from Frits. Incredible even. Somehow it adds that central focus element from Trackion but in a unique Podium way.

My answer: Prior to 2.20 I kept both editor and mixer minimized and opened/closed them with F6/F7 only when I needed them. In the 2.20 default setup, I can’t do that anymore. I now have to use the mouse to switch between their respective profile pages. And then I can only ever open/close one or the other (depending on which page I’m on) with the F keys. Add to that, if I want to change, for example, the ‘track color opacity setting’, I have to do that in three different profiles now for it to look consistent.

What do you suggest then? :-k

August 12, 2009 at 15:47 in reply to: Preview 2.20: Various UI improvements #16030

Conquistador
Participant

Bug???:

Overlapping menus / tooltips:

Buggy Beta?

I think one of the betas possibly no. 3 messed up my Podium set up. 🙁

I have 2.19 on the same machine and when I used it (after using a Podium 2.20 beta) all my projects loaded up straight into… the Event List.:-s

I thought I would just reinstall 2.19, no difference. Delete every trace of Podium on my hard drive then re-install. Still no difference. Same issue with projects loading straight in the event view. At this point I was getting a bit desperate. Never had these issues with Podium before. The default set up removed the Event List Loading problem but it messed up my carefully constructed “Complete set up” that I put together some time ago as everything was now in a default state.

I then had to go to appdata and delete the Zynewave folder there. That appears to have been the folder that needed to be deleted in the first place.#-o

If you can give a warning of sorts with a certain beta (you have in the past) that would help thanks!

Video Suggestion:
In the video there are no less than 5 red flashes in Podiums CPU meter eek! Just moving a few things here and there AFAICT caused it. I remember you correctly picked out from the CMM DVD with 1.77 on it that there was a lot of “red” on it. Missing mappings IIRC. Does not look good. That was not your fault of course.

In this case… I am assuming that either thcilnnahoj produced that track on a much more powerful PC than the one you used for the demo video or his project is just extremely CPU hungry…if it is the latter it may not be the best way to demo Podium in a video or as a demo project shipped with Podium as few will be able o play it without getting multiple red flashes on their CPU meter. Probably not the best way to demo Podium. Maybe a stripped down version of thcilnnahoj’s project would work better.

Zooming: It would have been much better if you could zoom in. Some aspects were a bit small on screen. Does BB Flash not allow zooming?

You zipped through the new 2.20 features really well. 😉

August 12, 2009 at 10:28 in reply to: Preview 2.20: Various UI improvements #16023

Conquistador
Participant

@Zynewave wrote:

Beta4 is up, with extensions to the new editor bar. I think I’m done working on this feature, unless you have further suggestions.

Note really a suggestion as such but a question. Will this bar be visible by default?

I’ve uploaded a video on YouTube that demonstrates the new 2.20 features:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jv39dX7NP_Q

The demo showcases one of the best new features in Podium for years IMO. Something that simplifies the previously somewhat complex “Editor Profile Properties” The Editor Bar is a far more simplified way to tap into that power. Brilliant. =D> I noticed you had two listings for Toolbars around 2:10 into the video why is that?

August 12, 2009 at 10:23 in reply to: Podiums Hierarchy (please vote)… #16022

Conquistador
Participant

Just to clarify for those who do not know…Frits made a huge effort to change the UI here (in response to user feedback) and of course before and after that has made incremental changes to makes things easier. So its not like he has made no effort or that I am implying that. 🙂

@thcilnnahoj wrote:

I know you get it, Conquistador, but let me try to explain for anyone who might be reading that doesn’t understand: The track header in the arrangement is actually displayed more like a container for the whole signal chain. The actual “Percussion 4” track, containing audio or MIDI events, is the blank line under the zPEQ – it even has a signal flow arrow up into the hidden effect track. The name and controls (SMR, gain, pan) for this bottom track are drawn at the top of the container. At least to me it makes sense. :-k

Nice explanation. 8) It does however highlight the issue here. In Tracktion or indeed pretty much any other app there is no need for such an elaborate explanation. That is the point here. It should not be necessary. By the time job blogs has worked that out his Plan B Reaper download would be finished ready for install.

I don’t know anyone who does not want an easier way to do something. Easy sells. Complexity and power can be presented in an easier and more accessible interface. Maybe the Grid is let down by the inconsistency of the UI elsewhere. The implementation is excellent but UI consistency in Podium’s Track VS the Mixer is totally backwards IMO.

How would you propose to change it? Pardon me if you already wrote down your ideas, maybe I missed it while reading all the threads. 🙂 If by saying “The tracks at the very least should visually match the mixer signal flow” you mean that effects should be stacked on top of the track

The answer to your question is yes. Look at the GP. The signal flow goes up visually. The mixer exactly the same…tracks…no. You might not like a change to the tracks visually but you can see from my example here the three key visual elements in Podium (GP, Track and Mixer) do not all visually line up. Fact.

then I would not like that better than the current view.

I would also advise making any changes optional anyway. So don’t worry .

If I remember correctly you can’t see instruments, or at least effects at all on track headers in Logic, Cubase etc., which I think is not very nice. But anyone who likes it that way can choose not to show the signal chain on the track headers.

Something else as a suggestion.

If you have four FX on say any RMX track it looks like this in the GP and mixer…

GEQ
GCO
Nitro
zPEQ
RMX

…if you click on the zPEQ the mixer and GP will both show the same FX track highlighted at the same level. The track view will still show this…

GEQ
GCO
Nitro
ZPEQ

I know its a container for those FX tracks but its totally graphically inconsistent. I would definitely suggest a simple mirror of the GP or Mixer view. That would go a **very** long way.

2.20 saw Frits make this change…

“The device, preset, param and input popup menus in the mixer are now identical to the corresponding submenus in the track menu. “

This is the kind of consistency I am suggesting here. That change is exactly what was needed. A graphical tweak to the tracks view would go a long way. It simply is not consistent with the Mixer and GP currently.

The other gain and pan faders inside the ‘signal flow box’ belong to the effect track and are not available by default. I don’t know why CQSD has them activated in the picture.

I do that sometimes to get metering for FX tracks where the FX has no input or output meters. Also I do bounce from different points in a chain as well for more creative variation (Pan .e.t.c) 8)

August 11, 2009 at 18:08 in reply to: Podiums Hierarchy (please vote)… #16013

Conquistador
Participant

@kyran wrote:

I’m actually wondering what you’re asking here.

When I read your post I get the impression that you want the interface to be layed out differently, but you ask for the hierarchical engine to be revamped.

One and the same pretty much. The representation of the signal flow in Podium (hierarchy) is one of my problems with it. Maybe keeping it as is and adding another view is better.

It may be more work and Frits might prefer a revision (or no changes at all).

Anyway…look at this image.

The mixer clearly shows the percussion track feeding into the ZpeQ but if you look at the corresponding track in the arranger it looks like the zPeq is feeding into the Percussion track. It’s a needless visual mix up that does not make sense.

To make matters worse the track below the Zpeq is feeding into it giving the impression that it is 3 levels below the percussion track. (Of course it is not) but it looks that way.

I know what is going on (used Podium for years) but I think that kind of problem is a hassle to visually deal with. The tracks at the very least should visually match the mixer signal flow. It just looks backward. I know someone who just simply could not understand it. He has used hardware and software for years. He is further down the road with software usage than I am. He found it really difficult to understand.

AFAICT he simply side stepped Podium completely I know he never posted here. How many times does that happen with potential buyers in month? Year?

I don’t expect Frits to drop the welcome changes to 2.20 and rush into this but I am simply bringing it up as he is working on UI changes however small or big. In any case It really could be much easier.

The image illustrated the kind of visual problem Podium presents a user needlessly. It gives legs to the “Podium is not easy” comments.

August 10, 2009 at 11:33 in reply to: Plugin rescanning #15987

Conquistador
Participant

@Zynewave wrote:

If you have radically changed the folder layout on your harddrive and want those folders reflected as folders in the project device list, the easiest way is:

Create a new project and continue to do a normal plugin scan.
When asked if you want to save as a template, do so.
Load your old project, and select the new template you created from the “project/project templates/load device setup” menu.

That is exactly what I have been doing since its addtion to PDM and the load process (here) is instant. Impressive.

2.20 Usability e.t.c…

However…I do think that some sort of option should be added to Podium to allow a user to have their VST folder scanned automatically and their device list automatically updated as well.

How could that work?
You could simply have Podium automatically load up the last saved device setup. Either from the last saved Project in Podium or last saved Project template.

I would assume most people would have at least one project template but I think it is 99.9% likely they will at least have one recently saved Project by the time they need to update their VST folder.

So Podium can automatically load that device set up after an autoscan of VSTs. The layout will follow the layout of their VST folder but also add any new additional mappings in a VST fodler added to the list.

I noticed that Podium sometimes leaves empty folders if they already exist in a device set up list after loading a new one, so I would imagine those duplicate folders should be automatically deleted as well after an auto VST scan and an auto device set up load for a nice 100% tidy process. 🙂

HTH

August 8, 2009 at 15:13 in reply to: Preview 2.20: Various UI improvements #15959

Conquistador
Participant

@Mike G wrote:

Maybe also need to make sure there is an easy to find “Restore default” setting. (Is that “load default setup”?

Yes I think thats it. Thankfully I have only needed it a few times in a few years but that is the emergency command in Podium IIRC 🙂

Viewing 15 posts - 211 through 225 (of 1,598 total)

← 1 2 3 … 14 15 16 … 105 106 107 →