JJ OS Feature Requests (ARCHIVE)

>how about VEL>DEPTH for the PITCH envelope? would be real real nice...

just sent these 2 new OS 2 requests to JJ. we'll see what happens.


REQUEST 1:

in GRID EDIT (6 PAD view), to get to LOOP EDIT MODE a user presses the WINDOW key.

in GRID EDIT (16 PAD view), to get to LOOP EDIT MODE is not possible!
(the WINDOW key instead opens the GRID OPTIONS screen).

16 pad view is easier to use than 6 pad view since you can see all the pads at once.
also, a user will more often use LOOP EDIT MODE instead of GRID OPTIONS.
therefore, a shortcut to LOOP EDIT MODE is desirable in 16 PAD view.

SUGGESTION:
in 6 PAD view, GRID OPTIONS is available when the SHIFT key is pressed (under F5).
so, i request that JJ put this same menu in 16 PAD view (when SHIFT key is pressed, "OPTION" will be at F5).

RESULT: the same behavior in both 6 PAD view and 16 PAD view.
WINDOW KEY = LOOP EDIT MODE.
SHIFT + F5 = GRID OPTIONS.




REQUEST 2:
when a row is selected in GRID EDIT (either by a pad press or using the arrow keys) the PAD will also be selected when a user goes to GPE screen.
also, when a pad is selected in GPE screen, this pad will also be selected when the user goes to the GRID EDIT screen.

this is the same as the current behavior in OS 2XL (the MPC 'remembers' the last PAD selected from screen to screen).
if possible, i request that this behavior be added to OS 2 as well.

Sooty_G wrote:

just sent these 2 new OS 2 requests to JJ. we'll see what happens.

You know? That's a good idea. Maybe I should send JJ a request for my recordable next sequence event idea to be implemented in OS2XL. I would definitely like to see that. However, I think I might wait a little while before I submit my request and see what response you get from JJ first. We don't all want to bombard JJ with a million requests at the same time and intimidate him. Otherwise, he'll either turn down most of them or charge more money for a new OS version or both.

I'm still thinking a route to nowhere in the out tab in GPE would be nice.

When working in Sequence Edit (mode+pad 13) it would be better if "DO IT" doesn't bring you back to main screen.

Often more than one operation is needed when editing sequences so letting the user remain in the Sequence Edit mode after pressing "DO IT" would make the workflow better.

The "unused" notation is very convenient making it easy to get a good overview of the material, and it's even better that unsued tracks and sequences are not shown in th "Next Sequence" and "Track Mute" menues.

However, more often than not I find I have both tracks and sequences that are empty in reality although they are not called "unused" anymore.

This is beacuse a sequence or track is considered "used" whenever the cursor is moved inside it. Altough it's completely empty.

It would be a much better idea to consider them "unused" as long as no data is entered. That way I wouldn't have to worry about moving the cursor carelessly.

The second best idea would be the possibility to return a sequence and track to the unsued state (clearing all content) manually. To tidy up a project.

torsig - +1!!

Yeah. +1 on that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why jj dropped 4x4 style input? anybody knows? I imagine that he could upgrade that
feature instead of removing it. What I mean be upgrade is:
-restrict that mode to only 16sounds from bankA
-utilize banks ABCD to input events on 4bars with instant access:bankA=bar1, bankB=bar2, C=bar3, D=bar4 on 16step grid
-now, if someone use double tempo he could have 2bars with 32steps each

When I look at the mpc UI that's 1st thing coming to my mind.
Pads arrangement + 4banks are simply begging for it

can we have linear, log + & log - slopes for our adsr?

I just emailed JJ a request for quantizable and recordable track group mutes and pad mutes:

viewtopic.php?f=25&t=111537&p=1015724#p1015724

i would love to have the option to be able to assign as many notes of polyphony as desired to a track so that it can be counted separate from the rest

I was just wondering... For those that are requesting updates for os2, what are the chances of this happening? Wouldn't XL be his main priority other than his JJ sequencer?

Coz wrote:I was just wondering... For those that are requesting updates for os2, what are the chances of this happening? Wouldn't XL be his main priority other than his JJ sequencer?

xl is definitely his main priority, but that doesn't mean that os 2 will get left in the dust, especially when there is potential money in it for him.

i've twice notified him of our big 'updates to os 2 requested' thread/petition on here, and he hasn't said no yet. i think it's something he's keeping open as a future option.

my prediction: he'll finish the JJ sequencer in about a month, then he'll get back to the bugfixes that have been piling up for 2xl, when that stuff is out of the way, i have a feeling he will do a last round of upgrades to os 2 for a small upgrade fee. lots of people have requested it and they are all willing to pay him for it, so i'm sure he'll get around to it in a bit.

In a nutshell (if you don't mind), why is it that people are clinging on to os2? I have only used the demo of XL for a few hours, and I am intending on switching up from the free JJ os to XL, but I hear a lot about os2 being more powerful etc. The comparison charts only tell half the story in my opinion so I was just wondering what the general consensus was? I know about Simult mode but there must be more to it than that...