Fair enough… for educational purposes, I would love to hear a story on how/what/why they made whatever design-choice… and I would think its wrong of me, to try to stop you from getting this info… that’s different then moaning about stuff… So I do hope you find your answer… and its an answer that makes sense…
I don’t exactly buy the “its a money making/non overlapping” choice…
cpu trouble… makes more sense… but still doesn’t cut the cake for me.
but, then they came with that overbridge stuff… could well be that THIS is the reason they use so much cpu-cycles to keep that all going… or the combination of AND vst-communication AND external communication via midi and all that crap, was just to difficult to put in 1 nice giant workflow that was upkeepable they did keep this overbridge stuff as a surprise… almost makes me wonder if that was keeping them to be clear on things…
I don’t know buddy… I wish I had details to share… would sure save us on allot of discussion and speculation.
just remember I might sound more angry / a jerk then I really am… and I do wish you all the fun you can get out your machines…
[/quote]
no worries, I’m digging for a reaction here anyway really - I mean if everyone properly confronted elektron over it I’m sure they’d feel more inclined to implement it…
ahh overbridge…
well it’s wonderful of them to do this for the people who will make some use of it, but this was not what I originally bought into, and it’s of no value to me.
i’m not sure why you’d buy hardware and then make it pretend to be software tbh. it’s simplistic and lazy, it hardly encourages experimentation, and it’s farcical if you have a medium to large studio with lots of other hardware that you’ll still have to record the old fashioned way (properly).
seems strange to put all that energy into implementing something so complex, of limited appeal, and ultimately unexpected as overbridge, whilst missing out something so simple, desirable, and expected as midi out on a sequencer!
actually it’s quite funny.