Generic remote and Mackie Control improvements

[AdamZuf]

Hi Cockos,
I'm a Nuendo user, and one of the main things that bother me about Reaper is the lack of control with Mackie Control (I use BCF2000) and Generic remote.

In Nuendo's Generic remote, I could complement whatever was missing with the BCF2000 with the BCR2000, using "selected channel" category assigns - everytime I select a channel, all of its inserts are automaticly available to the BCR2000, or whatever I wish. This is a very powerfull feature and I really wish you've done that.

In Nuendo's Mackie Control with the BCF2000, there are a few advantages:
Channel selection:When you select a channel, it replaces the previous selection and doesn't add. It's more reasonable, most actions are done on a single channel.
Markers in Reaper's MC are'nt navigatable, why...?
Sends: Well that's one of the reasons I've started the other thread about the mixer, it's explained in there.

Probably I'm missing a few more stuff, but these are the main things. Didn't have the chance to try the punching stuff...

Thanks
Adam

[Alsion]

There are many more threads requesting a generic remote implementation like in cubase/nuendo. but afaik didn't justin reply to those threads yet

[AdamZuf]

Well, we probably need some more threads in order for it to happen!

But yes, I should have used the search button :-)

[AdamZuf]

Would be nice if the sends would work in a way that on the I/O window, in the recieves section above the recieves, the track can be assigned to one of the 8 sends of mackie control.
If you opened a reverb track and assigned it to "Mackie Control send #4", and 5 tracks has sends into it, on the selection of any of these tracks, knob 4 controls it. Like in analog console, in the way that aux 4 is always reverb.
I think it's the simple and optimal to integrate it into Reaper's interface, correct me if I'm wrong.

[fab]

just bumping Generic Remote...

fab

[Orfilinn]

I post just to say that i will be please to have such a feature in the next major version of REAPER ( the v2.00 is coming soon, i hope) , in order to use exactly how i want my behringer BCR 2000 under REAPER, especially to get the parameter feedback

[simplecarnival]

I've posted a BCR 2000 workaround for the channel selection issue as described in the original post:

http://www.cockos.com/forum/showthre...6886#post96886

[Glubber]

+1 I hope a generic remote is being developed.

[simon]

A *lot* of people would be *very* excited to see some action on this front.



...somehow... now I could be wrong, but somehow I can just feel that we'll see some development in the near future....


I feel it I swear...


...soon...



c'mon now.



yeah baby.

[gollumsluvslave]

A bump from me +1

No one has replied to my thread, so I'll add it here.

I'd like to see an option that lets the Mackie Control follow the tracks in the Mixer, not the TCP.

If I've hidden tracks in the Reaper Mixer then I don't want those tracks cluttering up my physical mixer!

This would be great.

[Mongoo]

I am a Sonar user and just picked up a BCR2000. It looks like it would be great for adjusting the parameters of VSTi's and Plugin FX. I've been disappointed to find out though that ACT (Sonars active controller technology) has many limits. It's a beautiful concept though.

The way it works is, you open up your ACT matrix which has boxes for 8 Rotary controls, 8 Sliders, and 8 Buttons & Shift Buttons. There are 4 banks, but they require you to use the same controllers again, which doesn't give you access to a BCR2000's full potential. In it's best vain you could open two Act Matrix's to try to cover more ground but this still does not cover all of it's controls.

Other issues with Act as it stands now, are that it is not Full Duplex, which is supported by the BCR2000 but not Act in Sonar. This is a huge flaw in the software as it defeats the purpose of what ACT is suppose to let you do, which is allow you to jump from FX to FX or VSTi back and forth with your fx settings intact and waiting for you to return. A member of the cakewalk forum (a user, not anyone who works at Cakewalk) actually designed some software which is free and makes the BCR2000 more accesable. He's done an amazing job with it.

Here is the link to the forum and site hosting the software and source code. This is open source software.

The Forum topic:
http://forum.cakewalk.com/tm.asp?m=9...cr2000&#942324

The server site I found the files on when I searched in google:
http://public.planetmirror.com/pub/s...00control/?fl=

I don't know if he is still planning it, but there was mention that he would write an option to make the BCR2000 into a meter bridge too where the lights around the rotaries would spike out and around the circles. Oh, and his software is Full Duplex too. One downside is that it is not ACT compatible. I highly recommend anyone interested in writing code for the BCR2000 or a generic remote for reaper take a look at this.

I would love to see a more accessible ACT type control method in Reaper which uses Full Duplex, has a customizable number of parameter box's to assign (not just banks that use the same controllers) to accommodate the BCR2000's 52 button's & 56 rotaries per preset, and also with a customizable GUI which can vary in size, shape, and design displaying the parameters for visual feedback sake, kind of like the source code writer's scribble strips. The meter bridge thing would be pretty cool too.

I've been very impressed with reaper so far, but it still has some polishing needed, and features to be incorporated, usability heightened. Other than forums and voting on what updates we'd like to see in the future, what else can we do? I mean if this guy can beat Cakewalk at their own game, and he's just doing it because he recognized the softwares flaws and wanted to improve it, what about other open source code authors out there that could come together and start submitting other advancements in different applications of Reaper? Just like the democracy thing you've got going here, and the Color Theme's, Open up more section's in the software for direct user input. Make it truly a collaborative effort. Thats when your going to knock the Irons off of the big horse runners now.

Anyways, thank you for listening to my rant. I've got plenty more idea's if you need some. And I look forward to seeing where this new sequencing software is headed.

Take Care,

Mongoo


P.S. ++1

[hereander]

I also have a bcr2000 and I've been playing around with AJs code some time ago. I is c++ with a vb-frontend. As far as I remember it was a cool concept but quite useless as it only mapped the parameters in the order they were received from the plugin. I dropped the bcr for a remote sl and I don't have these problems anymore. Most of the stuff will be possible with reapers plugin sdk. so if you were working with AJs code you might have a look at the SDK. It is not so different.
I guess the reason why cockos released the sdk is that they don't want to code plugins for each and every controller around. It is very difficult do have a general approach to suite all controllers as you see with ACT. I guess the guys should leave the Csurf stuff to the less skilled people with the SDK and concentrate on the main application (improving MIDI for example ). Maybe from time to time they can look into the stuff that people made (other people should give feedback if it works with their setup) and put it in the main release.

[ludwigcs]

I think the control surface implementation in Sonar is Stellar. The major flaw here is having to set the track bindings in the keyboard shortcut menu is a major drawback to this daw. In addition, when a track is inserted at a point in the project prior to any of the tracks bound to the control surface, all of your controller assignments get hosed. Something along the lines of sonar with a controller module that can be moved from track to track without leaving the main GUI would be awesome. In addition being able to make global changes in the controler assignments as in the generic control surface properties page of Sonar is very slick. Anyhow, just wanted to throw in my two cents. I think some work in this direction would make an already awesome DAW leap to another level.

[Mongoo]

Originally Posted by hereander

I also have a bcr2000 and I've been playing around with AJs code some time ago. I is c++ with a vb-frontend. As far as I remember it was a cool concept but quite useless as it only mapped the parameters in the order they were received from the plugin. I dropped the bcr for a remote sl and I don't have these problems anymore. Most of the stuff will be possible with reapers plugin sdk. so if you were working with AJs code you might have a look at the SDK. It is not so different.
I guess the reason why cockos released the sdk is that they don't want to code plugins for each and every controller around. It is very difficult do have a general approach to suite all controllers as you see with ACT. I guess the guys should leave the Csurf stuff to the less skilled people with the SDK and concentrate on the main application (improving MIDI for example ). Maybe from time to time they can look into the stuff that people made (other people should give feedback if it works with their setup) and put it in the main release.

I didn't know Reaper had a plugin sdk. Where can I find it, and are there any guides or instructions available on how to write your own plugins for controllers? In particular, like to be able to use the BCR2000 with all of it's controls, where you can jump from FX to FX, independently changing them one at a time without affecting the other? Right now when I use midi learn on an FX parameter, a rotary will change the values for multiple instances of the same FX even if they are on separate tracks. Like if I was using two of the same EQ plugin's, one on track 2 and the other on track 5, and wanted to boost the high frequency gain of track 5, track 2's EQ would undesirably follow suit. Do you know of a way around this?

Acts main problem as I see it is just the non-support of full duplex and limiting the number of controllers. I can see what you mean though, I suppose most controllers out there have fewer rotaries, and therefore something like the BCR would have less support. How does the remote sl handle better? I don't know much about that controller.

[Cableaddict]

Glad to see more discussion on Reaper's external control implementation. IMO it's one of Reaper's few weak points. (very weak)

I don't personally need a "channel selection" as described by the OP, but I can see how that would be a huge thing for mixing. I've always wanted that in Protools.

I just want exactly what Ableton Live has: Instant learn-function of every parameter in the GUI, with all assignments locked to the particular track, not the track numbers.

Perfect.

"channel selection" sounds very cool, but it would have to be an option.

[Deric]

Originally Posted by Mongoo

I didn't know Reaper had a plugin sdk. Where can I find it...

Hi Mongoo,

Get it here:

http://www.reaper.fm/sdk/plugin/

You'll need a C++ compiler if you don't have one (Microsoft offers Visual Express C++ as a free download).

Regards tutorials etc, I'm afraid not, not yet anyway. If you know programming you'll be OK though as you can look at the .cpp files to see how the current implementations work.

The control surface SDK is very powerful already (IMO), also note there is the REAPER Developer Forum where confused souls (such as myself) can go and ask questions - there's already some useful information in there.

Hope that helps

[JosMuysers]

+1

Generic Remote sounds a bit like Steinberg...
I think Justin can build something A LOT BETTER then the generic remote in cubase/nuendo!!!

[Mongoo]

Is the generic remote kind of the same thing as a customizable control surface plugin with channel selection (or what ever it is that Sonar's ACT does) or different? I haven't used nuendo.