Why has the Pattern/Scene naming convention not been changed?
About a year ago, the Maschine devs thought it would be a good idea to throw a bunch of apostrophe's all over my Scenes and Patterns. Apostrophes that are not visible from the hardware because the names are too long. There was a pretty good discussion about it in the old forum:
My only wish is that one day a Maschine dev will decide to actually touch the hardware for once in their life so they can see this painfully glaring issue with the Maschine workflow.
Comments
-
Have you raised it as a bug?
0 -
It isn't a bug. It is a remarkably ill-considered and badly implemented *cough* 'improvement' that has totally wrecked many peoples' workflow. They are very well aware of it, and having an option for legacy behaviour has been requested many times to the sound of a deafening and some might say insulting silence.
😡
0 -
Actually, better than a legacy option would be the ability to edit the pattern used for naming/counting.
I never much liked the previous behavior, but I dislike the current one even more. I'd prefer a versioning like
<existingName>-<#.#>where the last version number is raised each time an element is copied and there is no limit as how many digits my version number has or whether it is numeric or alphanumeric.e.g.
- Chorus-A1 -> Chorus-A2
- Verse-2.3.1 -> Verse-2.3.2
- Bridge-C -> Bridge-D
Which should be configurable to also get back the previous behavior by using the pattern
<Pattern #>.1 -
After all this time I reckon this issue has dropped down a lot in their priority list, it's so low that new features are above it, the more time passes the less this will be discussed, new users will get used to it and it's sort of a snowball effect ... 😞
0 -
I dunno… IMNSHO the new scheme sux regardless of whether you are used to the old one… they fixed one part (the base name) while messing up another (the numbering).
1 -
At the very least, they could add the ability to renumber scenes in sequence order. It's not ideal, but at the moment it's atrocious. I don't really understand how they could take something that was speedy and working well for many people, and enthusiastically Anglo-Saxon it up so completely. You'd almost think they didn't even use the software they are 'developing'. They certainly didn't appear to consult with anyone that actually does.
Maybe Toby is on to something, maybe we should all do a bug report on it. At least they couldn't ignore that......
Oh... hang on ......er............................................🙄
1 -
For those who use default names yes, for sure, but the thing is a user who came after the change has no idea that the naming convention was better before, making it less likely to be discussed... or at least a priority in terms of what should be worked on.
0 -
But hopefully they'll be saying "I thought Maschine was supposed to be quick, this is a pigs ear if ever I saw one... what were they thinking? Are they capable of actually thinking?"
😆😥😥😆
0 -
As already mentioned by various users in several threads, we need a proper and transparent Feature Request and Bug Report system with comment and vote/like capabilities — which is an industry standard now for over a decade, e.g. Atlassian JIRA — instead of posting the same complaints over and over again just to have them ignored with similar regularity.
The current approach gets boring quickly.
To sum it up regarding this request: Although I’m an old user, I am not missing the old workflow but I still want the new one fixed because it gets in the way a lot more than before.
3 -
Are they capable of actually thinking?
This is unnecessary, please keep the conversation respectful. Especially as it seems it's not the first time (your profile has been already flagged for abuse by another user).
Regarding feature requests, we already commented on this that we're working on something as we speak. We just need time to figure out what works best for everyone.
1 -
Apologies, if I'm seen as being overly rude, but this has been brought up a number of times to seemingly no understanding as to how problematic it is to some people's workflow, which in itself doesn't show the greatest of respect. It is almost impossible for some of us to even understand how this could have come about, let alone be implemented in such a cavalier fashion.
May I please request that if a 'solution' is being worked on, that it is tried out with the beta team at least before full implementation. Would it really be such a bad idea for actual users to have input into what they are using?
0 -
As already mentioned by various users in several threads, we need a proper and transparent Feature Request and Bug Report system with comment and vote/like capabilities — which is an industry standard now for over a decade, e.g. Atlassian JIRA — instead of posting the same complaints over and over again just to have them ignored with similar regularity.
The current approach gets boring quickly.
+1
I really do not understand how it is beneficial to anyone not to work with users.
0 -
Just a couple of thoughts here, not having feature requests on the online community directly doesn't mean we do not work with users. We have a dedicated user research team doing that all year long and at a larger scale.
With that said, we've already shared that we're all the same page when it comes to having a proper set-up for that with an voting system. This did not really exist in the old forum (despite a proper category in some cases, it was still just discussions) and it takes some time to get everyone on the same page. As of today, I wouldn't be able to say how exactly FR will be implemented because we are still defining processes and workflows around it but we'll keep everyone updated when we have more info to share.
And yes, the platform we picked here does have that capability and we're already testing it (if you are in the NA2 beta, you will see FR/BR there soon).
2 -
In the interest of feasibility and timeliness I think it would be nice if a list of features could be established by the team working on maschine and then submitted to the users who will vote for one or two of the proposed features.
To date the list of features requested by users has become huge! We are not going to put on paper all the requests of these last years... 🙄
1 -
Just to relate a user feedback on that particular point, I arrived in the Maschine game in 2016 and without wanting to be rude or disrespectful, I personally stopped thinking, or requesting anything seeing that the way things are thought follow a logic that is not understandable by standard users like me. At some point , you just feel to standard and it all gets awkward and you feel your opinion never matters. Still Maschine remains great and I still rely on the basics of 2.8 version and work my way out without undermining myself and being in a bad mood because it is going like so. It obviously goes in a certain way for reasons that we can’t or don’t want to know anyway and the better is to take it as it is to keep up with a good workflow. The arrival of clips, pattern start, and arrpegiator new features clearly showed that some important requests where cared about and that was a very nice move but you’ll always have users that will put Maschine progression in balance with other software providers. I personally think it is going well in many regards and can’t wait to see what’s coming…
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 21 Welcome
- 739 Hangout
- 73 NI News
- 348 Tech Talks
- 1.6K Native Access
- 7.1K Komplete
- 932 Komplete General
- 1.7K Komplete Kontrol
- 2.6K Kontakt
- 651 Reaktor
- 226 Battery 4
- 390 Guitar Rig & FX
- 263 Massive X & Synths
- 384 Other Software & Hardware
- 3.1K Maschine
- 24 Sampling Room
- 3.7K Traktor
- 3.5K Traktor Software & Hardware
- Check out everything you can do
- Create an account
- See member benefits
- Answer questions
- Ask the community
- See product news
- Connect with creators