Module designs

[JackOats]

I, for one, would really love to have the option of replacing some of the present module designs with some of my own - if only for my own patches. I'm sure the clever people in the C.A. Dev department could devise a way to make this possible?

After all, third party developers do it all the time in VCV Rack.

[Steve W]

After all, third party developers do it all the time in VCV Rack.

Speaking just for myself, VCV Rack is useless on my PC. VM works nicely. I don't think what VCV does should be any sort of de facto standard. If CA follows what VCV changed in terms of graphics, VM will become useless on my PC.

[JackOats]

@Steve w:

I'm just suggesting this as a built-in option for people who would like to use their own designs on some VM modules.
If you don't like the option you don't have to choose it. No sweat.

the option of replacing some of the present module designs with some of my own

[Steve W]

I'm just suggesting this as a built-in option for people who would like to use their own designs on some VM modules.
If you don't like the option you don't have to choose it. No sweat.

I understood that perfectly from your original post. The point was valid without referencing VCV.

It is unclear from your reply that you understood my point about not referencing VCV as if it is a de facto standard.

After all, third party developers do it all the time in VCV Rack.

Let me try again: By saying that, it as if you are implying, "Its done with VCV Rack all the time. So, VM should do it, too." Again, without that last sentence, your point was a valid one.

As I said, I would hate to have CA make changes that would make VM useless on my PC the way VCV did with some of their changes. Therefore, I would never use VCV as a reference for suggesting changes to VM.

Its a simple point. I hope this clarifies it in case it was not clear.

[Steve W]

I'm just suggesting this as a built-in option for people who would like to use their own designs on some VM modules.
If you don't like the option you don't have to choose it. No sweat.

I understood that perfectly from your original post. The point was valid without referencing VCV.

It is unclear from your reply that you understood my point about not referencing VCV as if it is a de facto standard.

After all, third party developers do it all the time in VCV Rack.

Let me try again: By saying that, it's as if you are implying, "Its done with VCV Rack all the time. So, VM should do it, too." Again, without that last sentence, your point was a valid one.

As I said, I would hate to have CA make changes that would make VM useless on my PC the way VCV did with some of their changes. Therefore, I would never use VCV as a reference for suggesting changes to VM.

Its a simple point. I hope this clarifies it in case it was not clear.

[JackOats]

I would hate to have CA make changes that would make VM useless on my PC

I can't see why adding an option to Settings/General or Interface would cause this.

Maybe this needs to be made clear.

[Steve W]

I would hate to have CA make changes that would make VM useless on my PC

I can't see why adding an option to Settings/General or Interface would cause this.

Maybe this needs to be made clear.

Despite several attempts to restate and rephrase the basic idea I posted, you are not getting it. As I said, its really a very simple point. I have some ideas as to why you keep missing it. I think its because you are seeing my comment (1) narrowly and (2) applied only to your suggestion as opposed to your invoking VCV as a de facto standard as a rationale for why CA should implement your suggestion.

If you read my comments again, I hope you will see it more clearly:

After all, third party developers do it all the time in VCV Rack.

Speaking just for myself, VCV Rack is useless on my PC. VM works nicely. I don't think what VCV does should be any sort of de facto standard. If CA follows what VCV changed in terms of graphics, VM will become useless on my PC.

I'm just suggesting this as a built-in option for people who would like to use their own designs on some VM modules.
If you don't like the option you don't have to choose it. No sweat.

I understood that perfectly from your original post. The point was valid without referencing VCV.

It is unclear from your reply that you understood my point about not referencing VCV as if it is a de facto standard.

After all, third party developers do it all the time in VCV Rack.

Let me try again: By saying that, it is as if you are implying, "Its done with VCV Rack all the time. So, VM should do it, too." Again, without that last sentence, your point was a valid one.

As I said, I would hate to have CA make changes that would make VM useless on my PC the way VCV did with some of their changes. Therefore, I would never use VCV as a reference for suggesting changes to VM.

Its a simple point. I hope this clarifies it in case it was not clear.

To summarize: At no point did I say your suggestion was not worthy of consideration. In fact, at least twice (not including quotations) I said it was a valid point. I stated that I don't think VCV should be considered as a standard for what CA does (or doesn't do) with VM. I cited a reason for this: Changes to the way VCV handles graphics made it useless on my PC. That was stated as my reasoning as to why I would not like to see CA/VM use VCV as a standard.

Based on your replies, it seems to me that you thought I was disagreeing with this:

I, for one, would really love to have the option of replacing some of the present module designs with some of my own - if only for my own patches.

Initially, I was not disagreeing with that. However, now that I look at it, it seems to me that the option might already exist. So far as I have seen, correct me if I am wrong, you have the option to design your own modules and you have the option to use those modules in patches of your own design.

I'm just suggesting this as a built-in option for people who would like to use their own designs on some VM modules.

Perhaps by designs you mean something like what is sometimes called skins? Is that it? Are you asking for CA to rewrite VM so users and developers can tweak the front panels on CA modules (and third party modules) but leave the non-front panel functionality intact (change colors, re-arrange/resize components, etc.)?

It that's what your original intent was (I am not sure if it was), I would hate to see those changes make VM useless on my PC just as VCV's changes to their graphics system made VCV useless on my PC.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to reiterate my original point. I hope you understand it better.

[JackOats]

@Steve W

Hi Steve - Thank you for your last reply.
I have read (and reread) and understood your comments and I don't think I am missing the import of what you are saying.

My second statement was made, of course, to encourage the guys at Cherry Audio to consider adopting my suggestion - nothing more.

Perhaps by designs you mean something like what is sometimes called skins? Is that it?

Yes, exactly.

Are you asking for CA to rewrite VM so users and developers can tweak the front panels on CA modules

Yes.

(and third party modules)

No. Just CA modules.

but leave the non-front panel functionality intact (change colors, re-arrange/resize components, etc.)?

Yes.

It that's what your original intent was (I am not sure if it was), I would hate to see those changes make VM useless on my PC

I'm sorry, I still don't see how having this extra option available on a drop-down menu in VM would make VM useless on your PC. And, believe me, I wouldn't dream of causing a situation like that anyway.

So far as I have seen, correct me if I am wrong, you have the option to design your own modules and ... to use those modules in patches of your own design.

Absolutely - if you have the necessary coding skills in Java. At present I do not.

[Steve W]

Thanks for clarifying that my guesses as to your original intent were correct. Maybe those clarifications will help others understand what you were requesting.

I have no idea if trying to implement the feature you want will require changes to the way VM works. I do not have insights into the code to know if any changes to make modules "skinable" will affect only CA modules only or if it will affect all modules. In any case, in attempting to implement "skinability," I hope they don't have to change anything in the way graphics are handled that will make VM useless on my PC. I can't say it will or it won't. I just have the experiences I had with changes implemented by another software modular synth.

[ColinP]

Hi Steve I agree that VCV should not be a benchmark as I think VM is in many ways far superior but ​perhaps you could explain exactly what went so wrong that made VCV useless on your PC.

I've have had several requests to make Adroit module appearance customisable in some form or another. I understand that people have strong feelings about these things and want to accommodate preferences where possible.

This is something I have pencilled in for late summer hopefully.

So I'm curious to hear about downsides to this.