Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthFader
Exactly. People should be able to share their thoughts and I've been sharing mine about reaper.
When JBM tries to label people who don't like Reaper's midi implementation, as merely "pissy", it's a smear campaign and thread-jacking. We don't need that kind of behavior on the forums, there is a chat room for that I think.
DF
|
I didn't take JBM's comment as labeling anyone based on their suggestions (or dislikes) regarding midi implementation, but rather calling out the behavior around the opinion. Is it justified to get personal and accuse REAPER's developers of "not wanting to adapt" as part of "sharing our thoughts" about the product? Please, no offense, but when one person makes it personal it opens the door for others to do the same. The truth is the bulk of REAPER's changes and advances that have been made have come from the feature request threads posted by users. They are very responsive overall, and I'm sure they'll work on this area, too, if they get the right information to be able to make changes that will ultimately be appreciated and useful.
So far in reading through this thread, I've only seen that REAPER is weak in this area and that some figure the dev's simply don't care. Other than wishing REAPER would be more like some other program, I've seen very few actual suggestions that the devs could use to implement improvements. Personally, I don't think making REAPER like some other program is a solution, because that other program already exists so may as well use it instead. Rather, let's work together to make REAPER the best there is in all areas.
What I DO know about REAPER's developers is that if users can clearly define a feature that they want to see, then discus that feature, then post a feature request for that clearly-defined feature and get the support and agreement from more REAPER users, they are very responsive to such thing. Simply saying "XYZ program does it better", "REAPER sucks in this area", or "I wish REAPER did it like XYZ program" isn't enough to get the devs or the rest of the users on board with implementing a new change since there's no clear definition of exactly what needs changed.
BUT
If we can clearly define what an ideal hardware midi track would look like, and gain a consensus from several users, then I have no doubt that we'll see a positive response.
In the mean time, some of these guys who are really good with mapping controls and creating track templates can probably help create some work-arounds that can be used until the changes can be installed in the system. It's easy enough for someone to post their track template since it's saved as a file, right? So if FNG comes on the forum and say's, "hey, is there a way to make REAPER do _____?" it'll be very easy for those aware of the posted template to point them to it... and when it's perfected, it'll then be really easy for the devs to make it a permanent part of REAPER with the other details that can make it even better (such as redefining the track fader, or hiding them altogether)...