i think they confirmed it on their facebook page, saying that the new amp models would be available on bean/500/pro as soon as they were fully tested and ready to release.  i believe it mentioned that they developed them for 300/400 first.  they didn't give a reason as to why, but one can assume it was due to the lengthy delay between fw v 2.0 for 500/bean/pro and 300/400

Yes I understand, but also I said that is a strategy for sell more HD300 units because is more easy sell HD500 units. And the 2 strategies at this moment are:

-New models (4 if I remember well)

-Pod Farm free

Is ok, but also not good that if you pay for have a priority you have less less amps, like now. Is something about bussines, for the and for me in this case, I paid for more options and want more options (amps in this cases). Greetings

Not to kick this horse too much more but , I do understand the sentiment that people have. If you bought what is assumed to be the flagship product of the line, you might expect that it would receive updates first. I do agree that the HD500 is pretty model rich to begin with and this is of little concern on the whole. Another way to view this is that the HD300 and HD400 users are the user acceptance testers, threshing out the model bugs before the HD500 users get the more tested version.

Given that developers time needs to be focused on one product line or another, and it is obvious that there are two similar but separate product lines here, there are two ways that Line 6 could have proceeded. The first would have been decide that release A must be achieved for both product lines before public release. This would take longer for new models to be made available as there would be no further development on models until both had achieved release A. Also people would complain that Line 6 was holding back as models would be coupled to the releases on both lines achieving the same level.

To Illustrate First Option Timeline:

Development on 500 series starts
500 version A With Amp Model Set Version A is achieved
Development on 400 series starts
400 Version A With Amp Model Set Version A is achieved
Public Release for both series Version A with Model Set A

Development on 500 series starts
500 version B With Amp Model Set Version B is achieved
Development on 400 series starts
400 Version B With Amp Model Set Version B is achieved
Public Release for both series Version B with Model Set B

and so on....

The second approach is to release based on what product line is currently being worked on. This would flip the "bleeding edge" between the lines so models could be released as initially developed. So 500 series gets version A, then 400 series gets version B, then 500 gets version C. In this case each version brings new amp models with it and addresses bugs and enhancements specific to the product lines themselves. Effectively decoupling the model releases from the product lines allowing the amp models to progress at a rate faster than the product line specific code.

To Illustrate Second Option Timeline:

Development on 500 series starts
500 version A With Amp Model Set Version A is achieved
Public Release 500 series Version A with Model Set A

Development on 400 series starts
400 Version A With Amp Model Set Version B is achieved
Public Release for 400 series Version A with Model Set B

Development on 500 series starts
500 version B With Amp Model Set Version C is achieved
Public Release 500 series Version B with Model Set C

Development on 400 series starts
400 Version B With Amp Model Set Version D is achieved
Public Release for 400 series Version B with Model Set D

and so on....

In conclusion the second approach seems to be the strategy being taken and in the end benefits both product lines through getting the new amp model code out faster by not waiting for both product line specific code to catch up. It seems unfair when you are waiting for your product line to get the latest amps though. One thing that could speed things up is if the developer pool was increased to do parallel development, but that would at least double the cost of development representing less return on investment for Line 6.

Thanks Triryche, no don't play one, hope to get an 8 string in the near future though, but for now just 6 strings

Thanks Guys!

Well there was some additional EQ going on with Alloy II so ... using a DAW this is easy, but like meambobo stated earlier here, for live it's important to be able to fine tune your sound to the max and the current EQ's are not practical for me

cheers,

Hans

Thanks Spikey, but no special gift here, just playing for long hours