I'm not sure anyone finds fault in the proposal, and of course only cakewalk could tell you, and they won't, but the "last minute" already happened,  it is now past "the last minute" and probably well into production.  I would find fault with the always pervasive attitude that they need to cater to every whim on the forums immediately and if they don't, they are somehow running a rotten company.  it's probably very much too late to do anything but fix a major showstopper bug at this point, and even that would probably be left to a patch.  So, no problem with the suggestion, I agree with the OP that it would be helpful; but to claim that not honoring this request is tantamount to ignoring the customer base is absurd.  I would like this to be worked on and added as a patch at some point though.  that's more realistically a possibility. .

shawng


I'm not sure anyone finds fault in the proposal, and of course only cakewalk could tell you, and they won't, but the "last minute" already happened,  it is now past "the last minute" and probably well into production.  I would find fault with the always pervasive attitude that they need to cater to every whim on the forums immediately and if they don't, they are somehow running a rotten company.  it's probably very much too late to do anything but fix a major showstopper bug at this point, and even that would probably be left to a patch.  So, no problem with the suggestion, I agree with the OP that it would be helpful; but to claim that not honoring this request is tantamount to ignoring the customer base is absurd.  I would like this to be worked on and added as a patch at some point though.  that's more realistically a possibility.  programming software is not magic,  it's really hard work.

I reread the proposal and I can't find any suggestion that CW "ignores requests". Or any negative attribute what so ever.

I think you are probably right that it is too late but I'm simply looking at the idea as being a needed change and that it most likely can be done with little effort by CW. 

John: I do not know how you read "should/should not" as "can/can not." It is true I am unaware of CW development practices and if as you say they routinely add last minute customer requested enhancements, so be it. Honestly, I would rather not know about it and wish they provide a nonpublic pipeline for that stuff. There is no amount of discussion that will convince me that is a good idea. Maybe I have just been burned to many times both as a developer and a user to change my opinion.

I do agree that CW or any ethical software company would never intentionally introduce a change that would negatively impact their products.

I do appreciate Panup's contributions, thank him for them and if he, as you say, feels uncomfortable with my comments, I apologize to him.

Please do not misread my comments as knocking the feature request.

scook


John: I do not know how you read "should/should not" as "can/can not." It is true I am unaware of CW development practices and if as you say they routinely add last minute customer requested enhancements, so be it. Honestly, I would rather not know about it and wish they provide a nonpublic pipeline for that stuff. There is no amount of discussion that will convince me that is a good idea. Maybe I have just been burned to many times both as a developer and a user to change my opinion.

I do agree that CW or any legitimate software company would never intentionally introduce a change that would negatively impact their products.

I do appreciate Panup's contributions, thank him for them and if he, as you say, feels uncomfortable with my comments, I apologize to him.

Please do not misread my comments as knocking the feature request.

I didn't say they add last minute requests. I said Panup does.

In the context I used can and can not, it applies.

But the real question is how did a simple request get so much activity?

"Knocking it" is a slang term meaning finding fault. I think it also applies.

It seems ist really a matter of timing. If that is true isn't that due only no one thinking of it before? Should it be in contention simply because its late?

Lets give some slack here and let it pass. CW can handle it well enough.

I was fine until you started putting words in my mouth. Nothing I have said could be construed in anyway other than expressing my concerns and software development philosophy. It only got so much of my activity because you choose to call me out for expressing my opinions.

scook


I was fine until you started putting words in my mouth. Nothing I have said could be construed in anyway other than expressing my concerns and software development philosophy. It only got so much of my activity because you choose to call me out for expressing my opinions.

I'm sorry for making you feel uncomfortable.  That was not my intention. I don't believe that I put words in your mouth. If I did it was inadvertent. 

I tried to point out the way I look at it. Which I must say is something I should have thought of asking for a long time ago. It has been a minor annoyance to me since X1 came out. 

Then there is the greater notion of finding fault with good ideas. Ideas you or I may not find all that useful to ourselves but useful to others.

Take the VST 3 thread. I tried to be fair to both sides. Yet I tried to be supportive of the pro VST 3 side.

It is a request that should be considered not for the reasons given because they are suspect but simply for two reasons. The first is its being requested that is what the forum is partly for. It allows for a discussion- the interchange of ideas. The second because at some point I think it will need to be supported.

It doesn't need to be supported now but some time it will be.

Oh, you did not make me uncomfortable, maybe a little irritated. Never once did I comment on the merits feature request. I find it very easy to separate the feature request from the requested timing. It seems disingenuous to conflate the two.

You take the VST3 thread, I do not want it. I have no dog in that hunt at this time but did find the discourse very telling. You are not suggesting this thread compares in anyway to that thread are you?

read that in a HAL voice

scook


Oh, you did not make me uncomfortable, maybe a little irritated. Never once did I comment on the merits feature request. I find it very easy to separate the feature request from the requested timing. It seems disingenuous to conflate the two.

You take the VST3 thread, I do not want it. I have no dog in that hunt at this time but did find the discourse very telling. You are not suggesting this thread compares in anyway to that thread are you?

No, just for illustration. 

panup


Dear Bakers, please increase FX Bin width by 30 pixels. It would mean a lot to me and it should not be too risky one minute change. A few pixels, nothing more...

if this really means so much to you, why not just go with X2 producer and use PC instead of the old FX bin?

when you drag plugins into PC there's much more room for the name of the plugin