Conquistador's Forum Page

@Zynewave wrote:

2. Sometimes right clicking on a track header and choosing “Properties” resulted in a blank unnamed parameter track being created. It appears to happen on midi tracks.

I can’t reproduce this. Please see if you can pinpoint how to reproduce it.

Hmmm I cannot reproduce this either. It was really as simple as described originally to reproduce it. Anyway if I cannot repro’ that is a good thing and may be the result of recent fixes in 1.96 beta’s. Of course if I do stumble upon this again I will let you know.

3. Creating a bounce track at times resulted in the Effect tracks within a track chain panel being moved into the bounce track’s chain panel.

All effect tracks above the position where you insert the bounce track will be displayed in the bounce track lane header since they are processed after the bounce track.

Ok cool. The behavour still seemed erratic but it may simply have been me needing to get used to the representation of tracks (in 1.95) a bit more.

The stability and reliability of Podium have always been strong points. It’s good to see that continue. Thanks.

@Zynewave wrote:

Beta 4 is up:

The only problem is that it becomes more difficult to open/close the panels by clicking the panel headers, because the clicked panel slides away from the mouse. Difficult to explain, but please try it and voice your opinion.

You sound like you are expecting some negative feedback. 🙂

Personally I cannot see what you are concerned about. Really. The sliding motion is fine IMO. After clicking about and trying it out at length…I cannot see what might be “more difficult to open/close”.

Clicking the panel headers results in a nice clean slide to make way for the panel I want to see. No problems here at all. Works as expected. Very nice, very useful and the track panel is very logically placed now.

Of course that is just my opinon.

But even if others disagreed…enabling dragging of panels (highly desirable I must say) would solve that problem, but I have no problems with the position of the panels (much more logical now) or how they slide in Beta 4.

HTH

@out wrote:

does it need it?

Good question. There is a bit of a colour feature focus at the moment and while pleasant to have is far from the most pressing needs IMO.

Podium has quite a few options already, but that’s only my opinion,… so just trying to understand your thingking Igr0, any reason why the current colour options are not enough? (Genuinely curious) 🙂

@acousmod wrote:

I’m sorry to say that, but this color picker is for me the last straw !

I don’t deny that it looks good, but all thoses color and graphical refinements make me a little bitter…
Three years during which I can choose every color but cannot choose the keyboard shortcuts that I use all along the days, a BIG button to view the color picker whereas we can always ask for a simple fxp Patch Save button, etc…
Frankly, sometimes I dream that Podium would be ugly ! (no offence !)

Sorry, I must be tired…

I understand your point acousmod and I would guess that there is more than two or three Podium users who would have preferred something else instead at this time in 1.96.

In my case the automapping issue is still a severe problem for me. But I think it is still a good thing to be positive and give credit where it is due for clever ideas that make things easy and in this case also much more graphically appealing IMO.

But yes there are at least 3 items I would have liked to see before the colour picker….but that will not stop me from letting Frits know when I really like something even if I still have a far bigger issue in another area of Podium. So big that 90% of my Podium projects will only be finished once the automapping issue is addressed. Which could be months from now (early, mid or even late 2008). But it’s just too much manual work for me to bother with those projects. It’s actually easier to finsh the projects in another host. Much easier.

That is clearly not the message one would want a new user to read about Podium, but the automapping issue is just too wide a problem IMO.

But still it can only help to not only give feedback on problems with Podium but positve aspects of Podium as well. I think Frits is doing the best he can to satisfy all our requests while trying to maintain a consistent focus in one area to avoid getting sidetracked.

Also features can look easy to address based on functionality from our point of view but might take far longer to address from Frits point of view.

I guess I’m suggesting we cut him some slack here. I guess he can only do so much 🙂

@estwing wrote:

Hi Frits
obviously I get the signal flow approach, in this case mda piano-zPEQ-Send2-Send1
but if you look at the mda Piano group track lane in expanded mode the gain and pan dials would be read below the title”mda Piano”,opposite to the way in the inspector. Sorry but i was just trying to illustrate this with my previous post.
Mart

Totally agree with this. I also understand the thinking behind it Frits, but it just looks odd.

To illustrate it further…

Clearly one can see that the Gain and Pan for the Trilogy track are placed under the Track header in the arranger view but also over it in the GP. It’s inconsistent.

I will say this though…in Compact mode the Gain and Pan controls are placed above track headers or in the Track chain panel headers above all other tracks. This works very well IMO. But go to Expanded mode and you have the graphical inconsistency that estwing brought up.

As the Gain and Pan above track headers is a new design then going forward maybe you could…

a. Bring the new Gain and Pan sliders into the GP to replace the dials and also add them to Expanded mode track headers for consistency.

b. Place the current Gain and Pan dials below the track headers in the GP (in Expanded mode) so that they mirror the graphical layout of Tracks in the arrange view.

c. Add the new Gain and Pan sliders to the GP and do away with Expanded mode altogether. Adding any remaining functionality found in that mode to Compact mode. So effectively there would be one default mode.

@Zynewave wrote:

Depending on the screen resolution you use, you may have to trim the elements in your toolbars to avoid that the right edge of the toolbar becomes obscured. That’s about the only disadvantage I can see with the new layout. Overall I think this new layout is a big improvement.

I like the idea. Your screenshot presents an easier to use inspector. However it appears to be at a cost…what about the large transport, will that be moved over to the right as well?

User feedback appears split on this issue. I do not really think an option is necessary but then again I can see the clear benefit of your suggested change but also an equally obvious disadvantage as well. So an option may be the only solution.

If a full screen length Inspector is the goal Frits, you might have to settle for the slider idea I suggested some time ago for the GP instead. It looks like it is either that or everything gets moved to the right to accommodate the Inspector idea you have suggested.

It is a bit tricky, but I don’t think I want to lose a full length transport at the bottom of my screen. The slider idea for the GP solves that problem IMO. Ideally I would like the tabbed inspector to be optional not a fixed default with no way back.

I would guess the full length inspector can be dragged left or right using the small double arrows in the same way the List view can? I would have to see how this works but if that is really the case…

@Zynewave wrote:

The “Inspector” tab at the top works just like the current “List” tab.

Then I would say…lets have the tabbed Inspector but also consider other users by letting them optionally switch back to the older Inspector view.

Your comment here really sold me the idea now that I have thought it through…

@Zynewave wrote:

Another benefit is that the inspector can be shown in browser windows where you e.g. only show mixers.

Unless I misunderstood this, it means I will be able to drag the mixer up all the way to the top of the screen and have full access the tabbed Inspector. Pretty Cool. 8)

I just hope the large transport can ‘fit in’. 🙂

The right click menus and Project > arrangement creation process all work fine after a restart. 🙂

I still have a problem though…

One of the plugin mappings is the “return” from the plugin, so therefore it should be assigned as the bottom source in a track chain.

I cannot get that to work in either Expanded mode or Compact mode.

I cannot move the lower “Out 1+2” track above the other “In 1+2” track to try another way.

Yes the warning icon is red but there is little I know of to solve the problem outside of using the “New insert mapping command” and bypassing your advice earlier which clearly would mean there is a problem here.

Both plugs are free downloads so if there is a way to make the configuration in the image above work, please let me know. I just cannot use those plugs without the “New Insert mapping” option instead. On that basis there is still a problem, as the effect mappings that show up in the “Source” list will not work as you described.

They do not work inside a track panel and do not appear to work with a bounce track configuration either. Unless I am missing something having those plugs show up in the “Source list” just does not add up somehow. They appear to have no use.

Hi Frits, any progress on the mappings issue I brought up a few posts earlier in this thread…?

“I can definitely access a GEQ Overtone mapping and a Compressive Pro mapping (both free plugs to download and test) from my Instrument list in B17…”

I get the same result in B18.

Perhaps the fact that both plugs appear to need the “New insert Mapping” command (IMO Podium really needs an automatic process to do this like other hosts) to work properly in Podium, might have something to do with these mappings being accessible in the “Instrument” list. Just guessing.

Any progress on this problem?

Thanks.