Maschine SW Improvements - A sub-forum for Maschine SW requests / bugs

Sequencesounds · 2022-02-12T05:45:56+00:00

There was an error rendering this rich post.

Prompted by the lively discussion on the 'Coming up next for MASCHINE and MASCHINE+' thread, I am wondering if a proper discussion/exchange could be initiated between NI and Maschine users, regarding what Maschine users would like to see developed for the future of Maschine software.

An idea might be a dedicated sub forum called 'Maschine Software Requests', which is strictly pre-modded so that it follows this format:

User places feature request/bug/improvement
The topic is then closed to all apart from the initial poster and NI tech staff
NI staff respond: yes this is possible (with date if applicable) / no this is not possible / more info needed on request.
Original poster can respond if more info etc is needed

This would be very beneficial for both NI in maintaining loyalty of Maschine users and, obviously, for us Maschine users

The problem with general posts on the forum is they quickly go off on a tangent. I'm thinking of something totally focused towards feature requests for Machine software.

I certainly don't want to complain about Maschine - in my opinion, it is a potentially market beating solution - but there are certainly flaws / defects / omissions in the software - which I know people have been talking about for many, many years.

I totally appreciate that NI are bombarded with requests all day long - hence my desire for some kind of formalised exchange.

It would be great if NI and it's users could work together to make Maschine into the best device on the market.

For me, personally, these are vital things I would like to see:

General CPU optimisation geared towards the Live musician - specifically so we can load many groups at the same time. This would probably entail being able to easily disable non active fx/channels (like Reaper is able to) on a group level to conserve CPU. Integration of VST3 (which is on the roadmap) will help this situation - but a solution like Reaper's - https://reaperblog.net/2016/03/quick-tip-mute-tracks-to-save-cpu/ - would be a big help
Soloing a pad - being able to unsolo and the previous mute configuration is saved - ie all pads just don't enable themselves after solo is turned off. Such a simple thing, I would have thought
Improvements to piano roll - a great thing would to be able to click the midi event and it plays, etc
Midi modulation curves without using the auto hotkey hack
'Super Macro' knobs - ability to combine more than one function per a knob
Ability to split screens on hardware - ie Macros on 1 screen, Mixer on another

etc etc

But I am sure there are many other important things - my needs are not important - the important thing is that some kind of formalised dialogue can be established between NI and its users.

Thank you

Find more posts tagged with

Maschine 2 SW

Maschine MK3

Maschine Mikro MK3

Feature Request

Comments

D-One

1 - User places feature request/bug/improvement

2 - The topic is then closed to all apart from the initial poster and NI tech staff

...

4 - Original poster can respond if more info etc is needed

What would be the point of closing the topic and not allowing anyone else to chime in? Often people discussing the original Idea leads to a better or more refined idea overall. The same happens about how Ideas should be implemented, look, etc... Most people might know what they want but have no idea "How" they want it due to not being very tech-savvy.

NI staff respond: yes this is possible (with date if applicable) / no this is not possible / more info needed on request.

IMHO That ain't never gonna happen, they would need someone whose full-time job would be to go check with the dev-team gather info then sit around all day replying to everyone, especially with ETA's and all that, this hypothetical person's Maschine knowledge would also have to be very high if they're gonna validate every single request... speaking from experience a very high percentage of requests ask for features that already exist, are duplicates, etc.

You gotta tone down expectations by a lot, I mean... by a LOT.

The best that can be done in practical terms is a normal request sub-forum with strict rules, some moderation, and most important of all a commitment from the company to address the feasible top requests... Without this last point it will just be a useless request dump where people go to vent out their frustration and desires.

Sequencesounds

https://community.native-instruments.com/discussion/comment/5426#Comment_5426

In response to D-One - and firstly, let me thank him so much for his massive contribution to this and the old forum, he truly is the MVP (Most Valued Player) on the Maschine forums!

What would be the point of closing the topic and not allowing anyone else to chime in? Often people discussing the original Idea leads to a better or more refined idea overall. The same happens about how Ideas should be implemented, look, etc... Most people might know what they want but have no idea "How" they want it due to not being very tech-savvy.

To ensure that the subforum does not follow the usual pattern where somebody asks a question, everybody chimes in, and then nothing happens.

You gotta tone down expectations by a lot, I mean... by a LOT.

My expectations are as a NI customer who has spent 1000s of dollars on NI software and equipment. I dont personally believe a situation where a company addresses customer requests is that high an expectation, really - it may not be the norm, but it would certainly be a good state of affairs to have an improved dialogue with NI - to supplement the excellent work that people such as yourself (D-One) already do.

The best that can be done in practical terms is a normal request sub-forum with strict rules, some moderation, and most important of all a commitment from the company to address the feasible top requests... Without this last point it will just be a useless request dump where people go to vent out their frustration and desires.

100% agree. Anything to get some of these 10 year old issues sorted! You are totally right - without a 'commitment from the company to address the feasible top requests' nothing will get done

Anyway, the whole concept was just an idea - and I guess a reaction to the extremely irritating 'quirks' of the Machine software which, although I love Maschine and am totally committed to it - cause me a load of hassle in my creative work.

Olihop

For a better visibility I think the best would be to list the suggestions of improvements according to the different views and modes of maschine with a link attached to each request, as on the old forum. Pad mode, chords mode, arranger, sampler, mixer etc.

In this regard, I put here the old ideas that I had suggested for the controler:

Pad mode :

possibility to change the color of a group of selected sounds/groups
a function to swap two sounds !
possibility to define chords for each sound. Pretty much the same settings as in the chords mode but applicable to a particular sound

Step mode :

assign three grid values to the 3 unoccupied buttons above the screen on the right. 1/4 - 1/8 - 1/16

Event mode :

assign button 3 above the screen as delete button
possibility to mute an event

Arranger view (song) :

possibility to mute a clip

Mixer view :

possibility to manage the amount of sending and the destination of each sound to the sounds fx.
2 more auxiliaries per sound

Plugin view :

assign button 7 above the screen as bypass button
shift+button7 bypass all plugins
real-time time-stretch in the sampler
to have a visual feedback in real time of the different sections of the sampler on both screens. (fx, lfo, envelopes, destination)
render sound in place
plugin audio : fade in / fade out / reverse mode

Browser view :

possibility to adjust the volume of the prehear with the controller
possibility to deactivate the time-stretch of samples

Lock view :

possibility to rename snapshots
added a new view that would allow to trigger snapshots with the buttons above the screens to let the pads free to play. Ideally a "live view" with snapshots or scene assigned to the top buttons and macros assigned to the knobs.

Transport section :

flashing of the tap/metro button according to the bpm of the project

Others :

Groups recognized as fx groups. We could define them ourselves via a command so that they are marked as "group fx". For this purpose, a dedicated button or a shift+button manipulation would allow to access directly to this group marked as "group fx" which contains all fx sounds.

Kaiwan_NI

Hi @Sequencesounds many thanks for the feedback! Happy to say your idea is very much in line with what I have in mind, but as a community team we need input from other teams as well before we can make the process official. You can find this info in our FAQ:

The topic is then closed to all apart from the initial poster and NI tech staff.

NI staff respond: yes this is possible (with date if applicable) / no this is not possible / more info needed on request.

I agree with D-One that letting other people chime in would be beneficial. We can get to hear more as well why the feature is important for your workflow etc. Can't promise yet about getting an official yes from the team for every request though. Would be sensitive info for competitors no? 😀

By the way let's continue our discussions on this post here instead: Help us improve this new community - share your ideas and feedback💡

Sequencesounds

@Kaiwan_NI I really think that NI would be giving itself a massive boost it you did something like this - of course you and @D-One will know better the way this can be integrated into the forum.

It's very encouraging to have such positive feedback from NI staff - much appreciated

The only reason I suggested 'closing' the post to NI staff and the original poster was to avoid the trend over the years of the original question sometimes disappearing or going off topic under the weight of replies - but as I say, you guys will be able to work out the best system

I am happy to offer my services moderating this if needed

Nico_NI

@Sequencesounds said: I am happy to offer my services moderating this if needed

We're thinking about having a process in place to recruit moderators at some point. More info will be shared when we'll be all set.

Quick links

Unanswered questions