1.2 Software Release?

Share your wishes for the future of SoftStep.
soundog
Posts: 54
Joined: Fri Apr 15, 2011 5:21 pm

1.2 Software Release?

Postby soundog » Tue Jun 28, 2011 7:02 am

On May 6, it was mentioned in this forum that we might receive the next software release in a matter of "weeks, not months." It will soon be two months. I appreciate that debugging software on a complex product is challenging, but how about an update on progress? Many of us check these forums daily looking for a release.
adamqlw
Posts: 62
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 2:11 am

Re: 1.2 Software Release?

Postby adamqlw » Tue Jul 05, 2011 7:26 pm

I too would like to know what's up with this. While the concept is great I find the program still buggy. I would very much like to recommend SoftStep to people who ask me about it as I think the concept and construction are great, but delayed communication about these issues, the massive memory footprint of the program and general bugginess stops me from doing so.
mocker
Posts: 170
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2011 3:48 pm

Re: 1.2 Software Release?

Postby mocker » Wed Jul 06, 2011 12:02 am

+1
Also when people say : yeah, I bought one but it's so complicated that I still don't use it. I mean working pro musicians. I'd like to be able to tell them : you're wrong, it opens in a second and it's so simple to program ! You know the answer…
Again, don't get me wrong : we want Softstep to get better.
andiviola
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2011 1:04 am

Re: 1.2 Software Release?

Postby andiviola » Fri Jul 08, 2011 12:59 am

hello, i´m new here.
i also would like to use my softstep in a more convenient way.
at the moment it´s unusable for me, i decided not programming anything
else until a new software (1.2) comes out -
hopefully with more and better standalone features.
it could be a great controller, but i feel like a crach test dummy.
i´m waiting - i rather enjoy the sun than fooling around with software 1.1

andiviola
User avatar
ChrisLavender
Posts: 12
Joined: Sun May 01, 2011 5:32 am
Contact:

Re: 1.2 Software Release?

Postby ChrisLavender » Fri Jul 08, 2011 1:29 pm

Yea this is getting a bit ridiculous. At this point mine is collecting dust. The real frustrating thing for me is that if KMI would just post the messaging protocol to the unit I wouldn't need their software at all since I'm mostly using it with my own MaxMSP patches anyway. I could use it as is without their software but being able to control the LEDs and display is very important for my purposes. (ie. visual feedback from the controller.)

In fact, if I had that information (and I can't be alone here) I'm pretty confident I could write my own simple native Cocoa editor, which I could even offer on the AppStore (I'm an Apple Developer). I'm sure there are others on this forum that could do the same for Windows.

Yet, right now it's just sitting in a drawer. What a bummer.
mocker
Posts: 170
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2011 3:48 pm

Re: 1.2 Software Release?

Postby mocker » Fri Jul 08, 2011 2:25 pm

Very interesting, ChrisLavender.
I think you people at KMI should really read these comments and take them into consideration.
Your software is sometimes discouraging even the best intentioned users.
User avatar
Macciza
Posts: 157
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:23 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: 1.2 Software Release?

Postby Macciza » Fri Jul 08, 2011 9:24 pm

Hi All
I can't understand the level of frustration here - I am using my SS daily - it is rarely unplugged.
When I mention it to people I tell them it is complex. more so than most devices - but that with that goes great flexibility and depth. They will need to 'play around' with it more than most footpedals, but it will give back so much more in return. . Memory footprint is not an issue imo, anyone doing music should have at least 8 to 12G ram anyway; startup time in hosted is pretty irrellevant also imo, but i have computed since the 70's so I know s--l--o--w-- . . . Plus I guess I know what it is doing in that time - quite elegant copy-protection stuff . . .

You should have noticed in other posts since May that v1.2 is indeed nearly here - having seen an earlier beta, I know there are some good improvements on the way for those having problems at the moment including a 'simple editor' for people wanting easy basic control, saving hosted to standalone, librarian etc And yes -debugging can take time but many devices never get upgraded - this is a very modern phenomena. Very few of the products I have ever bought have had as much access and feedback and updating as the SS has had. My Roland VG99 is unlikely to ever get upgraded or my FC300 foot pedal despite many requests.

Re; alternate app development - many messaging protocols of many manufacturers are never released and their is no real reason why they should be if they are proprietary - ie Rolands RRC2 protocol, so I will consider myself very fortunate if they release such low-level info. I could, but am not bothered to, have a sniff and a hack to extract the necessary info but prefer to wait for KMI to finalise their end first. I have already had a play at using the raw MIDI output into Max, Processing, SC, QC etc and had a bit of a behind the scenes look at SS app. Sure the lack of return messaging was an issue but I used the computer for that. I guess if you wanted you could always start developing your app now and plug the other bits(messaging etc) in later when available. I've done a bit of dev myself, just not a great deal in objectiveC. I also know a substantial amount of programming and Max dev by many talented people went into producing this app . . .

So anyway, remember this is a 'USER' forum - not actually a direct line of contact with KMI, although they do drop in regularly - so particular requests etc should be sent to KMI directly, not just posted here.

In closing I find the whole package quite inspiring and am spending lots of time integrating it into my various systems and pursuits - solving most problems or accepting current limitations and sending off a future feature request straight to KMI with good feedback. I sympathise with those who are experiencing difficulty . . .

Hope that v1.2 will assuage some of your concerns . . .

I'm lovin' it . . . .

MM
KMI StringPort_1650, SoftStep_VK2 v1.2 & MIDI Expander; Mac_Moore Guitar,
Roland VG 8, 88 & 99, YamahaVL 70m; OSX 10.6.8, iMac i7 2.8G QC; MaxMSP 5.1.8, Ableton Live 8.2.2, M4L, SC3, QC, cSound, etc, etc,
soundog
Posts: 54
Joined: Fri Apr 15, 2011 5:21 pm

Re: 1.2 Software Release?

Postby soundog » Fri Jul 22, 2011 10:24 pm

I must warn you that I have copyrighted the phrase "I'm Lovin' It". Please refrain from using it.

Regards,

Ronald
Attachments
rtr1b1zd.jpg
rtr1b1zd.jpg (70.88 KiB) Viewed 7079 times
lolobomac
Posts: 14
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2011 4:18 am

Re: 1.2 Software Release?

Postby lolobomac » Mon Jul 25, 2011 2:05 am

Any date for de 1.2 release (mac version)?
Stew
Posts: 34
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2011 4:12 am

Re: 1.2 Software Release?

Postby Stew » Mon Aug 01, 2011 5:30 pm

Macciza wrote:
> Memory footprint is not an issue imo, anyone
> doing music should have at least 8 to 12G ram anyway;

Depends what you mean by "doing music". I am looking into incorporating SoftStep into a performance rig and a portable songwriting/production rig. I know I need to upgrade my little ol' MacBook Core 2 Duo at some stage but it's working pretty well at the moment with Ableton using a Digitech GNX3000 as the audio interface and makes for a great little portable rig. Using SoftStep with these two would be the icing on the cake but I'm concerned that in stand alone mode I'll lose to much functionality and that in app mode my MacBook wont be able to keep up.

> Re; alternate app development - many messaging protocols of many
> manufacturers are never released and their is no real reason why they
> should be if they are proprietary - ie Rolands RRC2 protocol, so I will
> consider myself very fortunate if they release such low-level info.

Point taken, but I wonder what is to lose by opening up the messaging protocol? Roland don't care about you once you've bought the product. If it does what it says on the box then that's it. KMI, as a small company, should be encouraging the user community to get involved to help build their ideas and their reputation. If SoftStep becomes the hip controller for all sorts of applications and hardware because it not only offers more control options but it can be tailored to work as the user wants (rather than how the designer thinks it should be used—not having a go at KMI but this is the way it usually works), then I could see SoftStep becoming a more widely used device than it is now. Take a great product and enhance it by having a strong user community push it in new and exciting directions ... sounds like win/win to me.

> In closing I find the whole package quite inspiring and am spending lots of
> time integrating it into my various systems and pursuits - solving most
> problems or accepting current limitations and sending off a future feature
> request straight to KMI with good feedback. I sympathise with those who are
> experiencing difficulty . . .

... and it's the experience of users like yourself Macciza that have got my excited about SoftStep. If I was more financial at this point I probably would have just dropped the $ already. As it is I can't really justify the (very reasonable) asking price at the moment, particularly if I have concerns about how it's going to work with my current gear (especially if other users are saying it's currently collecting dust). If I have to drop another $2k on a new laptop to run it it's definitely not going to happen for a while.

I hope KMI are listening to their users (and the hopeful soon-to-be users). They have great products that, in my opinion, more people should be using. If they can push through these early stages and deliver on the potential then I'm sure they will be very successful.
Peace,

Return to “SoftStep Feature Wishlist”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron