Hi!
it would be great if it was possible to save footswitch/pedal assignments per rig instead of globally.
It could be done in the same genius way the Kemper Team used with the volume pedal settings:
save a setting with a rig or overwrite it and make it global with the "Lock Vol.Pedal" option.
Works perfect and covers all needs 
There IS a way to make something like you are asking for, and it is called Morphing.
I mean, you want a switch to work as C and D stomp activation on Rig 1 and on delay mix and boost on Rig 2.
Assign the switch or the pedal to the morphing function and use the mix control in the stomps (0-100%) in order to toggle between the two status.
Did I get it right?
Well, beside the looper, tap and the rig up/down (which are functions on their own that i'd keep separated from the rest), i believe you can do almost everything.
If you want to control the volume you can morph the volume with the expression pedal.
Well, beside the looper, tap and the rig up/down (which are functions on their own that i'd keep separated from the rest), i believe you can do almost everything.
If you want to control the volume you can morph the volume with the expression pedal.
Why would you leave those functions out?
there are also other functions, that i didn´t even mention:
- invert all stomps
- module a/b/c/d/x/mod on/off (some stomps have no mix, so there is no workaround with the morph function)
- Dly + Rev on/off with or without spillover ________________really important for me
- Dly Infinite & Hold (don´t know if you could morph those)____really important for me
- Rotary speed (again...don´t know about morphing)
Morphing is really great. As you said, you can use it to simulate simple switching. But it would be better not to waste the amazing possibilities of morphing just to turn a distortion on or off, right?
Morphing also has the following great oder bad - depending on what you need - side effect: if morphing is engaged and you adjust any parameter, this parameter will be included/modified into the morphing "engine" and will be changed when you switch back and forth.
With this feature added you could:
- morph and switch 2 functions of your choice
- use a switch for morphing in Rig1 and an exp.pedal for morphing in Rig2
- get the best control of each rig with a minimum amount of gear.
- use in a practical way the features that the KPA is already offering us
I assume many of us play in very diverse situations. right now you have to change system settings in order make the switches and pedals do what you need them to do. the KPA already can be that flexible, but please.... move these settings from "system" to "rig" so that we can save them!
To keep it simple the switch/pedal settings could be "locked to global" by default.
I mean, I would never use these functions on the same switches since they are about rig switching and it would make no sense to me having a rig up-down in a Rig and a stop control in another one.
I see no functionality in this.
I made a similar request a while ago, so yes, + 1.
Look here: Option to keep switch assignment consistent for a performance.
imagine you play in one band where you need to switch rigs up and down (and volume), another band where you play only one sound but need to switch delay on and off and tap tempo (and morph). i could imagine a lot of different scenarios.
If I were in the same situation, I'd just turn two knobs before gigging.
But it is only me.
Different condition if I had similar needs during a live, but some of the options you mentioned, for me, would have no practical use.
But again, that's me.
If I were in the same situation, I'd just turn two knobs before gigging.But it is only me.
Different condition if I had similar needs during a live, but some of the options you mentioned, for me, would have no practical use.
But again, that's me.
Hi Jimmyno,
Do you try to show that my feature request is nonsense? I have a bit the impression you are really negative about this. Why?
You seriously would not enjoy being able to save a setting that you frequently use? I suppose you save other settings on the KPA, right? So what is the difference?
I think I explained a) why your workaround doesn´t work and b) that there is really a practical use for my request. Expressing again and again that you would not use this feature, just because of your personal taste, is not very constructive.
If there is another workaround, that makes my request superfluous, please let me know! Or some input that would improve my request.
Constructive input would be if you mention the useful options, instead of underlining that some options have no practical use for you.
I think we have a little language barrier
I mean, if CK considers your request and in the meanwhile it is developed, I'm suggesting you what I'd do if I had similar needs.
No meant to be negative at all.
That's it
