Why has the Pattern/Scene naming convention not been changed?

2»

Comments

  • Peter Harris
    Peter Harris Member Posts: 470 Pro

    All of the flames about everybody's pet feature request not being implemented quickly enough get REALLY exhausting to those of us who don't share this or that particular jihad.

    In this case, I understand you think that the automatic naming convention issue is super high priority for YOU and undoubtedly for some other users. But the development team must have to prioritize things at some level in order of highest importance to the broadest number of users. And surely you can't believe that repeatedly jumping up and down on the heads of the support team about an issue that can't possibly be as important to 99% of the user base as it is to you is fair or justified.

    I think most of us in the less strident and more understated majority understand that this ecosystem is supporting an incredibly impressive and complex interweaving of hardware and software that MOST OF US ARE MOSTLY VERY HAPPY WITH MOST OF THE TIME.

    It's the principle of the greater good and it is the core of democratic civilized society. So if you expect to be part of that then please dial it back dude. 💦💨🔥😁

  • tempsperdu
    tempsperdu Member Posts: 310 Pro
    edited April 2022

    Peter Harris


    All of the flames about everybody's pet feature request not being implemented quickly enough get REALLY exhausting to those of us who don't share this or that particular jihad.


    Which, if you actually read this, is not what it is.

    No one is calling for new features to be implemented quicker here, but for the usability of Maschine to be restored to what it was since, afaik, its inception.

    As has been seen, it has negatively affected many peoples' workflow, and so they are aggrieved, especially as NI haven't really shown concern over this.

    Although something akin to the new convention was on the request list, I don't believe it was high priority and its current implementation creates more problems than it solves.

    As the previous implementation exists, it would appear that having an option for legacy behaviour shouldn't be such a huge ask. If it is, then an acknowledgement of the issues and an explanation of why the issues can't be addressed would be at least partially helpful. Even just being able to trigger renumber order sequentially for scenes would alleviate things somewhat.

    Yes, the ecosystem is complex, and the 'new behaviour' itself doesn't seem to take that into account or there would be proper liaison between arranger and ideas view in sequential numbering

    If it doesn't affect the way you work, fine, but maybe a little respect for those it does affect, which is far from one person, is also due.

  • Peter Harris
    Peter Harris Member Posts: 470 Pro
    https://community.native-instruments.com/discussion/comment/12587#Comment_12587

    That's fair.

  • ozon
    ozon Member Posts: 1,349 Expert
    https://community.native-instruments.com/discussion/comment/12542#Comment_12542

    That lecture and using the J word was really uncalled for.

    The existing workflow, to which users were forced (!) to adapt for a decade, was ditched without further notice. That is potentially quite confusing and unsettling to those who were assimilated and started to like it.

  • tempsperdu
    tempsperdu Member Posts: 310 Pro
    edited April 2022

    If anything called out for a survey of how users would like things to work, then I'd say this is it.

    I'm guessing that when Maschine was first released, one of its main considerations was speed and ease of use.

    It seems to have achieved this by simplifying its software architecture, but doing so at the cost of limitations that have restricted further development, hence, for instance, the need to create another 'layer' to facilitate clips.

    Presumably, because Maschine is also a usable VST, it was thought that anything hampered by those restrictions (i.e. time changes etc) could be countered by using it in that fashion within a DAW.

    I can't see it as an envious position to actually try and develop Maschine in the way it appears to be going because it seems to be like trying to turn itself into something it simply wasn't built for.

    I doubt I'm the only person who is finding that as the newer features are added, they are being done so at the cost of ease of use, speed and readability. In many ways, I would prefer to work on an older pre clips version of Maschine simply because its readability, ease of use and speed were far superior.

    I understand, to a degree, those calling for the +1approach, and that that is preferable for them, but it is problematic for those who use the legacy way of working and even those that like the new behaviour probably want to lose the brackets as they are needlessly time-consuming when changing.

    There probably isn't going to be a solution to this that doesn't involve the ability to have optional behaviour, just as using clips had to be done in a way that retained the legacy of patterns.

    At the moment, it really is a disaster and if you try adding scenes by duplication in arranger the sequence numbering when adding scenes in ideas doesn't update to reflect that, making sequential numbering useless without manually renaming.

    Please please please can we have readability, ease of use and speed back on the agenda.

Back To Top

Categories