Because most of my presets will use many of the Multi fader controls (as I assume will many others), it’s very important that an option is added to easily configure the Name of each Fader (versus FADER 1, FADER2, etc.) I don’t think a formatter can do this right now, right? Something like this. f1, etc can still be used for menus but the Mini should display the configured Fader name on the multi window. Is this feasible? The user will have no idea what controls do without this (unless this can be programmed with a formatter - which is also fine).
This will be included in the next firmware release. Along with an option to assign each “fader” to different midi device. To be released before end of March.
Will there be a setName() to change the displayed name? That will be important as I reuse controls for different devices.
How will the fader name affect valueId’s? Currently I use the pattern ctl:getValue(“f1”) to get the value of the first fader, f2 for the second.
Will the name change affect these id’s? It’s OK if it changes the id, if the order of values if fixed in getValues() or getValueIds() to allow lookup of each fader positionally or has some extra index.
To maintain backward compatibility, the valueIds will remain unchanged in both JSON and Lua. In addition, an optional name property will be added. When defined, it will take precedence over the valueId when controls are displayed and on their detail pages.
I will add a setName() and getName() to the ControlValue.
I already have a basic implementation ready in my development branch. One challenge I see is fitting the names into the available space. My current working version is intended only to display the names, i.e. it is not the final approach:
I would appreciate your thoughts on how you would like the individual names to be displayed. Note that we are limited to two font sizes. It is also a question whether the control name itself, e.g. “V FADER 4”, in the example above, should be displayed at all. Any input is welcome.
Most important place to display fader names is on the expanded view (with one encoder per value).
Usually it is nice to display the control name … and provide the option to leave the control name blank to not display it.
Sometime we’ll want to display an abbreviated column name and other times might not want to display anything. Perhaps the default is to display the single character fader abbreviation in the overview, full name in the expanded view and allow users to provide a name callback to hide or display custom names.
I agree here. I suggest you leave the top screen as is as you have to select a rotary anyway to change the value. You can just do that to see the names. Trying to fit names on the top level is going to create more issues than it solves as many names will begin with same letter, etc. The Fader group label there is the important thing.
It might make more sense to display the control name centered above the group of bar graphs than on the right side.
Also can we make the control support up to 8 faders to match the knobs on the device. That’s far more important than displaying the both the large bar graph and the large dials (scale some down or consider hiding some). In many cases the bargraph may not even make sense across the selected parameters.
On the E1 Mini, there’s greater need to use the “mixer" control as a way to edit more than 4 parameters as there are a limited number of knobs, controls, and pages compared to the Mk II.
That might be nice. So if you display 8 controls, you can display both Channels A and B by pressing the top 4 rotaries 1=Channel A (1-8), 2= Channel A (9-16), 3 = Channel B (1-8), 4 = Channel B (9-16). This means that after pushing a rotary all 8 rotaries become active to change control values, not just the bottom 4. And the screen arrangement can make it clear which set of rotaries control which group of 4 controls. But I’m sure this is going to be a lot more difficult to code up.
Then there is the issue of some of these controls might map to numerics that might not fit in the circle displays.SO it would be nice to include a formatted value display as well. Not sure there needs then to be a value in the circle (unless that always maps to Midi value perhaps). A few things to think about here. But to start I can life with the initial proposal of four controls as is only with names and ability to format a value in the circle.
Not sure I’d want a second control name (one for each group of 4). Most of the time the grouping within the 8 will be arbitrary. The labels on each dial is enough for me along with a single name for the group of 8.
Ah but you are then asking for a restructure using 8 vs. 4 internal format then. Not sure Martin will want to make that change, but fine with me. Two sets of 8 per Channel. Would be nice if he could have fitted three sets of dix, but that doesn’t map to the roataries.
