Jump to content
zappazapper

Lobbying for Ideascale Votes

Recommended Posts

I'm posting this here because Ideascale is the best way to get L6's attention, and in order for the changes that are important for me to become a reality, I need support from the rest of the community.

 

https://line6.ideascale.com/a/dtd/Controller-Assign-independent-of-Snapshots/1000019-23508

 

There are some other changes that I'd also like to see happen, and one that is actually more useful to me, but this is the one with the most votes so far, so I'll start here.

 

In case the wording I used in the Ideascale post is confusing, I'll try to make it more clear.

 

I'm just trying to extend the Snapshot Bypass option to the Controller Assign function.

 

In case you're not familiar with Snapshot Bypass, it's an option to have the bypass state of a block ignore Snapshots. So, for example, you could have a preset where a Distortion block, a Modulation block, and a Reverb block are turned on and off in different combinations using Snapshots. But let's say you have a Poly Capo block that you want on for some songs and off for others, and you don't want that block to be controlled by Snapshots. To do this, you would highlight the Poly Capo block, hit ACTION, and the option to disable Snapshot Bypass will be on the bottom right. Now when you select different Snapshots, the Poly Capo block ignores them.

 

My idea extends this ability to Controllers. In case you're not familiar with Controllers, it's a function that allows you to assign a single parameter of a block to a footswitch or an expression pedal. So, for example, you could have the gain parameter of a Distortion block assigned to a footswitch to give you a little more gain during solos. But if you then select a different Snapshot in the middle of your solo, Helix will ignore your assigned Controller and set the gain back to whatever it was set to when you created the Snapshot. It's possible that this is exactly what you want to happen, but I also think it's possible that you'd like that gain parameter to just be controlled by the footswitch and ignore the Snapshots, just like we can with bypass states.

 

It's my feeling that, just like Snapshot Bypass, being able to have individual parameters ignore Snapshots actually makes the Snapshot function more powerful and useful, not less.

 

If this makes sense to you, please upvote it on Ideascale. If it makes sense but you disagree, feel free to downvote it, but I'd love the opportunity to convince you otherwise, so please comment. If this doesn't make any sense to you and you'd like a better explanation, feel free to ask questions and I'll do my best to answer.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I SOOO much second this, especially for external MIDI controllers! Wanted to create a sort of hack-ish thing to simulate global blocks with my Behringer BCR2000 - but no way I can even use the Behringer at all, unless I completely skipped snapshots, something I don't want.

 

Also, yes, any parameter should be able to ignore snapshot bypass. I find this particularly annoying with the split blocks. Sure, you can switch snapshot bypass off for them, but that only defines whether the split is active or not and has no impact on, say, switching between path A and B.

 

Anyhow, I doubt we will see the controller issue being adressed as it seems that the Helix is using the same protocol for both external MIDI controllers and snaphot controlled items. Seriously, that's making absolutely no sense, I still remember being almost shocked when I stumbled upon it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ya I posted it months ago. That's OK. Being annoyed at L6 for their priorities hasn't succeeded in getting anything changed. Let's just try to keep the thread near the top of the forum so it might pique someone's curiosity enough to read it and maybe we can get enough upvotes to get it noticed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, zappazapper said:

Being annoyed at L6 for their priorities hasn't succeeded in getting anything changed.

 

Well. Thing is, they're doing what most of their customers want. Nifty controller arrangements (let alone using external MIDI controllers) certainly aren't exactly en vogue among many users. Looking at TGP and the likes, people are constantly asking for yet more amp models, new reverbs and what not. So that's what Line 6 will deliver. Heck, in these 6 years they haven't even managed to implement a remotely decent IR management - so my hopes for anything more advanced are quite low.

But well, once live playing is back to half normal (hopefully starting next spring), I will have a look at something different anyway. A GT-1000 looks like a pretty decent choice for my use cases, vastly better hardware quality too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, SaschaFranck said:

 

Well. Thing is, they're doing what most of their customers want. Nifty controller arrangements (let alone using external MIDI controllers) certainly aren't exactly en vogue among many users.

 

Then I consider it my job to champion nifty controller arrangements, to convince "most users" that the effects they want would be far more powerful with a more convenient way to control them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh ya baby, two more upvotes!!

 

Democracy at work!!

 

"Ask not what your Helix can do for you. Ask what you can do for your Helix." - Jay Efkay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know what this is about because I'm lazy and stopped reading after 3 sentences of rambling without a hint on what the proposal / idea is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Schmalle said:

...because I'm lazy...

You said it, not me. 

 

7 minutes ago, Schmalle said:

...rambling...

Maybe if you weren't so lazy and read the post, you'd realize it's not rambling. I will, however, admit to succinctness not being one of my strong suits. 

 

I'll attempt to be more succinct. 

 

I'm suggesting that the Snapshot Bypass feature be applied to every parameter of a block, not just it's bypass state. So I could, for example, have the gain on an amp block be controlled by a footswitch and not have the value of the gain parameter change when I select a different Snapshot. 

 

Was that better? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, zappazapper said:

...

I'm suggesting that the Snapshot Bypass feature be applied to every parameter of a block, not just it's bypass state. So I could, for example, have the gain on an amp block be controlled by a footswitch and not have the value of the gain parameter change when I select a different Snapshot. 

 

Was that better? 

Yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, zappazapper said:

Will you upvote it now? 

I voted for it.

 

My point was: consider people's attention span. Put an abstract of what you want first. I.e. instead of the title "Lobbying for Ideascale Votes" something like "Vote for my 'fine-grained snapshot bypass' proposal!" would be much more to the point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Schmalle said:

I voted for it.

 

My point was: consider people's attention span. Put an abstract of what you want first. I.e. instead of the title "Lobbying for Ideascale Votes" something like "Vote for my 'fine-grained snapshot bypass' proposal!" would be much more to the point.

 

My original Ideascale post, which is about a year old, I think is very much to the point. It got 12 votes in a year. When I decided to "lobby" for it here, I figured I needed to explain why I was reposting a year old Ideascale post, and maybe that the reason it didn't get many votes was because it assumed the target market understood what it was saying, so I thought I had better try to explain it in more depth, which doesn't exactly lend itself to brevity. Damned if you do, damned if you don't, I guess. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, zappazapper said:

My original Ideascale post, which is about a year old, I think is very much to the point. It got 12 votes in a year. When I decided to "lobby" for it here, I figured I needed to explain why I was reposting a year old Ideascale post, and maybe that the reason it didn't get many votes was because it assumed the target market understood what it was saying, so I thought I had better try to explain it in more depth, which doesn't exactly lend itself to brevity. Damned if you do, damned if you don't, I guess. 

I get what you're saying. For me that explanation stuff can be done as a one liner. It's boring... what's interesting your idea, because it potentially benefits the reader and needs their attention.

Also: Democracy is a crappy system, but it seems to be the best we've got. So... I appreciate your efforts...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Schmalle said:

I get what you're saying. For me that explanation stuff can be done as a one liner. It's boring... what's interesting your idea, because it potentially benefits the reader and needs their attention.

Also: Democracy is a crappy system, but it seems to be the best we've got. So... I appreciate your efforts...

 

Well, I don't know if Ideascale is necessarily a democracy. If we all voted that the Helix should be able to run Doom, they wouldn't do it, and by the same token, I don't think an idea has to be the most upvoted idea for it to be implemented. I think more votes and more conversation around the idea will naturally cause someone at L6 to take notice of it and consider it on its own merits, and I trust that they know what a good idea is and I accept that something like the Helix is a huge endeavor and I don't fault them for letting things that I might see as obvious slip through the cracks, and Ideascale is a good way of filtering out the noise that a typical support forum experience offers to an organization trying to get some useful feedback. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, zappazapper said:

Well, I don't know if Ideascale is necessarily a democracy. If we all voted that the Helix should be able to run Doom, they wouldn't do it, and by the same token, I don't think an idea has to be the most upvoted idea for it to be implemented. I think more votes and more conversation around the idea will naturally cause someone at L6 to take notice of it and consider it on its own merits, and I trust that they know what a good idea is and I accept that something like the Helix is a huge endeavor and I don't fault them for letting things that I might see as obvious slip through the cracks, and Ideascale is a good way of filtering out the noise that a typical support forum experience offers to an organization trying to get some useful feedback. 

I was thinking more of the campaining / getting people to vote aspect - and agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Schmalle said:

I was thinking more of the campaining / getting people to vote aspect - and agree.

Oh... haha... ya, it's a disaster... I'm having a time over on TGP right now... sigh...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...