Hi,
thanks for your reply.
> Logic manages the hardware controller centrally, which makes way more
> sense to me than having each individual plugin attempt to manage the
> controller separately.
Exactly! This is what I would expect.
> Have you even considered how your plugin
> could possibly instruct the host where to place parameters when it
> has no idea what positions are available?
Yes, I would expect the plug-in to have maps for each type of controller layout it wants to support. This is what is done in ProTools.
> You could create a GUI in your plugin for mapping
> to one of these, but would you try to support every option from
> Mackie?
In this particular case, we would actually only support 1 specific controller. But in other situations I might want to support the "main" controllers, yes.
> What about hardware controllers from other companies like
> Behringer and Euphonix? Logic also supports hardware controllers
> from companies like TASCAM, which is why I prefer to have the host
> handle as much as possible.
There's nothing stopping you from having both.
What I mean is... When a controller is attached, the host checks the plug-in to see if it has a map for this particular layout. If it doesn't, well, then it can simply proceed using your preferred method.
If it has, all the better, it can switch to that layout.
> I do not understand your complete dismissal of MIDI.
Well, the communication is 1-way, as Bill says, so already there we don't want it.
There's other reasons, but I fear that getting into those will remove focus from our task, and might start a discussion, which is off topic.
> The fact is
> that these hardware controllers send MIDI messages to the host, so
> you can't really expect support for anything fancier than what the
> controllers themselves are using. The interface between the primary
> Mackie MCU Pro and the extension modules is quite literally a MIDI
> cable.
Yes, but what I was talking about was Bills suggestion that we listen to MIDI messages. *That* is not good enough.
> The extenders are nothing more than simple MIDI controllers
> with a particular protocol. It sounds like what you're asking for is
> a new hardware controller standard in the industry, rather than
> compatibility with what is currently on the market.
Not at all.
On the contrary.
All I'm asking for is a way to improve positioning on existing controllers.
And actually, besides positioning, also a way to give the controller short versions of the display names and parameter strings, but I was saving that for when my first problem was solved (if it gets solved).
Again, I hope I'm clearer now, and that these misunderstandings can stop :-)
Thanks,
Michael Olsen
PhonoXone
Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now.
|