SCOPE SDK, OpenSCOPE, and JUCE -- Developer Standards

[jksuperstar]

Before any releases from S|C become available, I thought I'd open discussion on "standards" the rest of us looking to develop might follow. Things like Surface sizes, color schemes, libraries of components (knobs, etc).

It'd be nice if there was some consistency across developers, so the end-product has a certain look, feel, and expectation that comes with any device. Maybe choosing widths that subdivisions of the HD standards (just like real Modular synths have standard widths so they all are interoperable). Maybe if Juce allows for themes, let the same themes be supported.

Anyways, it'd be nice to identify the things that *should* be the same, and open discussion on them.

I for one, like some of the stuff Clavia did with their modular synth -- outputs always have a SQUARE bubble around the connection. Inputs are ROUND. Of course, I'm not just speaking of the modular device, but of the routing window itself. And it looks like the routing window will have more of a look like the modular anyways...with cables that have tension and gravity, and nodes inside the box, rather than on the edge.

Maybe devices could have a schematic symbol overlay on them in the routing window to help show what the device does.

Thoughts?

[siriusbliss]

Great idea - and good points.

I'd at least like to be able to name modules/cells, and rotate them for better viewing on large, dense projects.

I'll post more ideas as them come.

Thanks,

Greg

[winger]

Yes, I like the idea of naming modules in the routing window. I have projects with many identical devices and it is hard to tell which one you are looking at. Can this be done with the current sdk?

[dante]

For those that want rack like visuals, a facade for each device that mimics the aspect ratio of 1, 2,3,or 4U high 19 inch rack mount.

With the Multi-FX device configured graphically as a rack to hold them.

With 3D rotation

[HUROLURA]

The more true modular shape would be a good idea also for me.
Setting some standart dimension would be good.
The rack shaped for FX would also be something intersting to keep any device looks familiar to hardware users just like what is done in Propellerheads Reason ...

The 3D stuff is not that interesting for me as it only provide smarter visual aspect but would require more powerfull computer than the ones I am currently using with no real benefit.
Would be cool to be able to easily swap from front to rear view of devices easily but we would need to keep the routing windows view which makes it easy to have a global view of the setup.

Being able to add new name to standard devices or IO modules would be cool also as this would allow easier identification with multiple instance and be able to assign IO to the real hardware which is/are connected to the IO. Being able to have it done for IO or IO pair would be great ...

[jksuperstar]

Hurolura, I know this is in scope 5, look in Tools/external devices, and you can alias any hardware I/O, save as device, and even use as an insert if you save to the effects directory. the name shows in the routing window, too.

[Bud Weiser]

The rack shaped for FX would also be something intersting to keep any device looks familiar to hardware users just like what is done in Propellerheads Reason ...

Yep,- +1

1 rack for the FX,- just like a siderack for FOH
1 rack for the instruments

both racks w/ front/rear toggle functionality in "VIEW" incl. a "masking" function for dedicated groups of cables.

Being able to add new name to standard devices or IO modules would be cool also as this would allow easier identification with multiple instance and be able to assign IO to the real hardware which is/are connected to the IO. Being able to have it done for IO or IO pair would be great ...

Excellent idea !

Bud

[jksuperstar]

For real. Look at the Routing Menu, Tools -> External Devices. You CAN NAME HARDWARE I/O. With your own name. Only limit is you need to use either mono or stereo only. Source M/S, External Device M/S, Destination M/S and even Mastering (which adds meters, delay control, etc).

Here's a photo of my Live connections. These are all various A16 Z-link connections, ASIO2, ADAT B and the Analog Inputs. But you see them as "JK's iPad", and "DD Guitar". For External FX, Once created, you can save this as its own .dev, and use it as an insert anywhere you'd like. it's nice to have my outboard effect just dropped in as an insert anytime I need it! Especially if it needs to be placed inside a device!

[siriusbliss]

I want to name channels in the mixer and ASIO modules.
And I want to be able to rotate them.

Greg

[HUROLURA]

Even after using scope for 6 years, you always learn something new ...
I'll try it ! Thanks.

[winger]

Naming I/O is useful. But what if you are building your own 32 channel mixer using 32 specialized channel strips for example. You have 32 devices named channel-strip. Anyway to get them named channel-strip-1, channel-strip-2...? or something like that?

[dante]

Thinking of the concept of using XITE-1 as a live synth rack, many musicians may not want to deal with the complexity of routing etc and may want to treat the XITE-1 as simply an expander and only high level programmability in a live gig situation.

Maybe JUCE developers could take a leaf from synth manufacturers and come up with some simple registration scenarios like this JP80 screen that could be displayed on a very small LCD (touchscreen?) attached to rack mount host/XITE setup.

JP80 Reg

JP80Reg.jpg (102.68 KiB) Viewed 4684 times

[HUROLURA]

Naming I/O is useful. But what if you are building your own 32 channel mixer using 32 specialized channel strips for example. You have 32 devices named channel-strip. Anyway to get them named channel-strip-1, channel-strip-2...? or something like that?

My goal was more about having something simpler to handle while using hardware synths or FX connected to scope I/O.
While this could be usefull, this should be only an alias to allow sharing project between user with different setups.

[HUROLURA]

Thinking of the concept of using XITE-1 as a live synth rack, many musicians may not want to deal with the complexity of routing etc and may want to treat the XITE-1 as simply an expander and only high level programmability in a live gig situation.

Maybe JUCE developers could take a leaf from synth manufacturers and come up with some simple registration scenarios like this JP80 screen that could be displayed on a very small LCD (touchscreen?) attached to rack mount host/XITE setup.

The attachment JP80Reg.jpg is no longer available

Maybe something like this :

Creamware stage one ?

creamw_re.jpg (96.14 KiB) Viewed 4662 times

[dante]

Exactly !

[jksuperstar]

Regarding JUCE, has anyone used it, or begun development with SCOPE 6?

I am particularly curious about multi-touch interfaces. I know there is a fair amount built-in to JUCE, but I'm not sure how to make use of it yet, and so if you know, please share

(This means, that if SDK 6/Scope 6 makes use of JUCE, then multi-touch might be built-in, for those running windows 7 at least!)

[tgstgs]

juce is just a library you may use_

see: http://www.rawmaterialsoftware.com/juce ... asses.html

but you can code whatever you like now_

good vibes

[winger]

I have not seen any activity from SC about open scope since it was announced. As a matter of fact, I don't see any reference to it on S/C's web site. Is it still on, or are they backing off on the idea?

[garyb]

it's still on.
lotta work, very few people to do it...
heads down, take a breath when it's finished....