My disagreement is to do with Line 6 putting themselves in an all-or-nothing corner with the assignable FX blocks - If you can't accommodate 8 of the most DSP-intensive effects, then either limit the number of effects, or don't go dynamic at all. A post was made explaining that the compromise had to be either to eliminate dual-tones, eliminate the ability to re-order the chain, or keep both by forcing a DSP limit. Line 6 did the best they could, with the problem they created, so they could hit that $500 mark. I've never said that Line 6 "should" do something or that they owe anyone anything - What I have been doing, is pointing out not only what the original design shortcomings are, but that they've sold the same shortcomings for the second time in a row by still refusing to go beyond that $500 price-point, even if it means delivering what they intended in the first place. There's nothing more for me to say on that subject, except defend my non-diplomatic language.
"You can disagree with their design decisions all you want, but there's no reason to call it an "engineering failure" simply because you don't like the way it works."
Find a quote of me saying it that simply, and you'll be correct.
Here's my reasoning, one more time (but without that offensive f-word): In order to stay at the target-price, Line 6 compromised software stability by only providing a portion of the required processing power in the hardware. At this point in the engineering process, this is a...BooBoo.
So, they go back to the drawing board, but because time is money, they work around the BooBoo. Note that at this point, the BooBoo is not only still included, but is dictating the rest of the engineering. Some might argue that, because the BooBoo is still present...that this still constitutes a BooBoo.
So, in engineering around the BooBoo, they implement a Dynamic DSP Limit that doesn't remove the BooBoo, but rather makes its compromising effects less-drastic - Damage-control. So, the BooBoo is still there, but smaller. It's been a few years since I worked with Venn Diagrams, but my sense of logic - Not involved in public-relations for Line 6 in any way, mind you - Dictates that a partial BooBoo does not constitute a Non-BooBoo.
So the BooBoo from the start has changed, and a lot more has changed to accomodate it...But that doesn't matter, because I'm guilty of some kind of offense for thinking that the BooBoo is still in the final product, to an extent that would justify still referring to it as a BooBoo.
Rather than apologize, I'll instead proactively promise to adopt whatever euphemism you think is more-flattering toward a company that won't read this, because they have a separate forum for suggestions. How about "Design Decisions"?
I admit, at times, that I question the company's design decisions. NO OFFENSE.
"is it 2010 again? wtf... why we having the same tired argument...."
They're selling the same tired product again. Capiche?
Sorry for the quote marks -The multi-quote didn't hold up too well when the post went through.