Directory structure for browsing rigs

  • The title says it all - it would be cool if I could link certain patches to "directories".


    That would make sorting the patches much more flexible. Right now it's date / created by / name etc.
    It would be cool if I could create directories for different bands, different guitars (acoustic / electric), factory vs. downloaded vs. own profiles, assign the rigs/profiles to a directory and didn't have to browse through hundreds of patches to find what I'm looking for.

  • +1


    And I'd like to have the ability to put the same rig into different of those "directories". This might be implemented by tagging the rigs, enabling the user to use more than one tag on a rig. Then we could first browse the tags ("directories"), select one, and then browse all the rigs belonging to it.

  • They are, color groups.... Or you mean they should be separated?


    Yes, they should be in separate tabs/groups in the interface. Right now it's just one huge list, you scroll through it and the BG color changes to let you know that you've scrolling into one or other type of FX.


    It would be much better (and quicker) to be able to simply go to the distortion or modulation group (or folder) directly then just have a list of the stomps/fx that are relevant to that group. Far less scrolling.

  • The flat structure is fast and simple as long as the number of files/settings/effects is rel. small to medium.


    We tend to think, we have our stuff better organized by putting it in different boxes, and for some things this is true, BUT
    when the number of boxes increases - how many times have you been in a situation like - hmm did i put it here or there, this drawer?, that folder?
    Where did I save this picture? ...


    Implementing a folder system also opens up ALOT of potential new software flaws introducing further instabilities (file/folder naming, backup/restore problems ...
    PLUS it blows everything up (filenames including full paths) & slows everything down (climbing up and down the ladder (cd) takes time).
    Programming dedicated hardware is very different from using a windows api with predefined classes.


    I'd rather see them focus on a mac/windows config tool in a way that we keep/manage our profile collection on a computer (organized in folders ....) and just swap out the hot ones that survive the test period.


    Don't wanna be a smart ass here, but I really hate menus and folder structures with 2 or 3 or 4 sublevels. (like it used to be in Word or in my old car when I wanted to reset the board computer after a visit to the gas station).


    Well at some point it is also a matter of taste ... :)


    H

  • The alternative would be tags, and i don't think anyone wants to sit and add them using the jogwheel dial (or search for them that way either).


    As things stand right now with the KPA there are enough FX that it would be much quicker if they were stored and accessed in folders. I had originally assumed that it would be possible to just use the buttons somehow to toggle through the group/modes and refine down to the particular thing I wanted. That's how it's been in every other MultiFX I've owned (BOSS/Pod).


    I think if you had the option of arranging/grouping yourself then that would solve the issues of too deep or too flat. And I do agree that we need an editor on the computer too.

  • As things stand right now with the KPA there are enough FX that it would be much quicker if they were stored and accessed in folders. I had originally assumed that it would be possible to just use the buttons somehow to toggle through the group/modes and refine down to the particular thing I wanted. That's how it's been in every other MultiFX I've owned (BOSS/Pod).

    You do know you can save all your FX presets, individually or an entire FX setup.


    Perhaps I'm not understanding what you mean?