4.2 Beta OS bug? - Pure Cabinet in CABINET different that Pure Cabinet in MASTER

    It's not an implementation bug, it's a design bug. But still a bug.
    If two parameter settings (local and global PC) should be independent, there must not be dependency one on the another. The priority should be boolean: there should be override flag in each rig which will give priority to local setting. Even better if rotary control values for local PC would go from "OFF",0.0, 0.1, ...... 10.0.

    Quote from Peto

    It's not an implementation bug, it's a design bug. But still a bug.
    If two parameter settings (local and global PC) should be independent, there must not be dependency one on the another. The priority should be boolean: there should be override flag in each rig which will give priority to local setting. Even better if rotary control values for local PC would go from "OFF",0.0, 0.1, ...... 10.0.

    To me the term 'design bug' is nonsense per se. Doesn't even exist in Wikipedia. ;)
    Instead of arguing:
    Like I said before if you think of a better solution be constructive and open a feature request.
    You may get supporters and may be heard.

    I agree with Ingolf.A better approach would be a feature request.
    I would support because I also think that this solution could be improved.


    But it is a working solution and follows in principle the request of many users.

    Quote from Ingolf

    To me the term 'design bug' is nonsense per se. Doesn't even exist in Wikipedia.
    Instead of arguing:
    Like I said before if you think of a better solution be constructive and open a feature request.
    You may get supporters and may be heard.

    I thought you will be able to get the point I made with phrase "design bug". :) By "design bug" I had on mind that st was designed wrong way. I am not a native speaker, so I apologize.
    I am not arguing. I just wrote my point of view on the present solution. That's all.
    I am not going to make a feature request. If anybody feels the need, you can do it.

    Quote from Peto


    I am not arguing. I just wrote my point of view on the present solution. That's all.
    I am not going to make a feature request. If anybody feels the need, you can do it.

    I get what you want to say, still I don't understand why you don't make a feature request if you think it was designed the wrong way and could be solved better. ;)

    Do you really think they will change it after there will be feature request?
    I am a bit skeptical, cause they designed it this way... But for the sake of peace of mind I can try to. :)

    Quote from Ingolf

    Let's see. I support you. ;) And I'm not the only one.

    For sure. Id like to hear your solution too, because for me it works fine like it is. Its a decision what i want to do. If i like it global, ok i make it global (i never liked it global, because pure cab sounds not good on every rig, so i didn't used pure cab but i liked it on clean rigs).


    If i want it per rig, hurray i can store it per rig. Gamechanger!
    Very happy with this, because for me the global setting is needless with the store per rig function


    Cheers from the ape planet

    Quote from Eltzejupp

    For sure. Id like to hear your solution too, because for me it works fine like it is. Its a decision what i want to do. If i like it global, ok i make it global (i never liked it global, because pure cab sounds not good on every rig, so i didn't used pure cab but i liked it on clean rigs).
    If i want it per rig, hurray i can store it per rig. Gamechanger!
    Very happy with this, because for me the global setting is needless with the store per rig function


    Cheers from the ape planet

    This

    Quote from Ingolf

    To me the term 'design bug' is nonsense per se. Doesn't even exist in Wikipedia. ;) Instead of arguing:
    Like I said before if you think of a better solution be constructive and open a feature request.
    You may get supporters and may be heard.

    Actually it is a real term I've heard and even used myself often when dealing both with algorithm design as well as UI and workflow development (actual design) - If the outcome of an action isn't the expected one then this is considered a design bug. The objective of the design not only failed to deliver but broke the users workflow and provided a moment of cognitive dissonance for the user. That's not a good thing! This kind of bug can be a sales stopper too, just as bad as a traditional one.


    UI is all about fast, easy, consistency, discoverability and predictable workflow. The ultimate goal is to be so great at those things that your UI becomes invisible and forgettable, a virtual extension of your users mind, the user should never think about the tool, just the job.