PlanetZ forums - scopeusers.com

in th 2448 I had some channels routed to a stereo (linked) sub-group. I was able to have the (now stereo) fader controlled by midi etc. At once the linking between the channels is broken (the "link" button still beeing red). I can´t controll that sub-channel via midi and it´s not possible to have it reassigned to a controller (not via right mouse klick not via controller window).
What´s wrong?

Not all faders/switches in the 2448 are automatable......check the manual to find out which (I can't remember off the top OMH)

It wasn´t about automatation. The stereo sub channel (linked mono 1&2) suddenly doesn´t work as a linked channel. And it occurs that the previously assigned midi controller can´t be used nor reassigned.

Ralf?

Ralf is a very nice man and he was interested in my experienced problems/bugs some time ago. But unfortunately that was about it. I never got advice nor has someone of the technical staff gotten my descriptions (at least not that I know)

It´s a pity...

Well maybe if we started a bug list, here in the Problem Solving forum, it would be visible enough to attract CWA's attention?

Each bug description would have to be described step-by-step, possibly with a link to another thread that shows images etc. Personally I would expect a rigid report format (specified in advance) to be followed.

The idea would be to give users, testers and developers all a chance to see if they can reproduce and / or work around and / or fix the bug.

The list would have to be a single post by one person, so that snipers and gripers wouldn't be allowed to add to it.

Maybe John would even be willing to make it a sticky?

Call it the "Planet BugZ" thread.

What do you think?

Not too bad idea. The "bug reports" would have to be discussed and evaluated before so that only really important/severe things would get onto that list. That way CW could find an interest in reading it. I also find myself asking sometimes why CW hardware isn´t supplied with the current shark generation (after nearly 10 years of charge for the old ones). But things like that shouldn´t go on that list...

CW could (should) really have an interest in such a list. On the other side - I do know that lot and the politics since triple dat. That´s why I bought Pulsar 1.01 with high hopes. That´s why SFP is great. And that´s why I know think that our buglist will not be a success. But why not giving it a try?

cw DOES pay attention to bugs. cwa is a small company and they must do many things. unfortunately bugs that are not showstoppers are not the highest priority, but in the 5 years i have owned the cards, the have been numerous improvements and almost all of the requests and problems that were highlighted by the users have been quietly addressed, if not as fast as we would always like.....

Bump.

Only 2 of us interested in maintaining an SFP bug list?

sorry, I guess I don't have any bugs
the idea is terriffic tho

On 2004-10-18 21:04, blazesboylan wrote:
Bump.

Only 2 of us interested in maintaining an SFP bug list?

Maybe more people would know that you want to do this if the idea wasn't buried in a thread with the title "sub(or bus)problem.

I suggest starting a new thread with a "bug" related title;)

R

Cool.

I don't have time to do anything for the next few days, but in my usual slower-than-a-snail fashion I will get it going shortly...

Thanks,

Johann

additional to real bugs I would suggest also enclosing posts that adress to "near showstoppers". The missing of an auto-save function had cost me some hours or work more than once. Pulsar is quite stable but it too crashes sometimes. Imagine the customer´s face when telling him that not only had the program crashed but that you have lost all the corrections made together in some hours work...
Again we would have to discuss such points so only such that are important to a lot of us would go onto the list.

What do you think?

hi

i think is a problem or a buggy software