G2 Improovements /controlsurface update rates

[3phase]

I have one problem with the G2 that i really would like to see improved in the next update...
Problem...
as often i am probably the only one that felt motivated to criticizes that point in a mail to clavia... And therefore i guess it is a point of low priority for them...
However...

The G2 has a value as controller surface and i think except bugfixes the best improvement for the instrument within a software synthesizers world are improvements on the user interface... things like better labeling of knobs, midi master modules, tactics for excluding parameters in variation changes ( the global mode is not be used at all when using the G2 controlling external gear..almost a conceptional bug ).
But beside of that...
The general feel of the instrument as keyboard should be improved...because the G2 feels slow for me... even the keyboard response..but that is minimal... more important..the reaction time to parametrchanges on the knobs..For my taste way to slow..
I think that is caused because the update rate management isn't optimized.. the display reacts to fast in relation to the knobs response...
actually they are equal..and thats nice when using a knob as levelmeter... but in my opinion not necessary in most cases... i many cases i don't need to see the led bar precisely on position while adjusting the knob..thats usually where my ears take priority in the judgement..
However... Its nice when the led meters are acurate..but i have the feeling that this is the reason the G2 is slower on its knobs than the NM1...
Its something you feel when you work with booth machines and i like to be the G2 superior in that perspective because it has labeled knobs..
NM1 knobs are fast but in their anonymity way less useful than the G2 knobs..

Problem..people get used to this little details..they adapt their way of working... just don't using the knobs so much anymore..working more with the modwheel..or wheels..
And therefore nobody formulates demands for such little things and ask for funky sampling modules instead.
But in my opinion the G2 wouldn't become a tiny bit better with a fancy sampling module..just a extra feature..nothing in relation to the software based competition anyway..a gimmick...
Making response times faster..that will create a benefit over the virtual world..the G2 should be optimized there...

And..because, if clavia chooses to do another update they are probably confronted with many funky wishes...
I would like to ask the userbase to concentrate on the little but in the longterm more important improvements to ask for when clavia might give the G2 another development round...
As we have seen with the wishlist of the NM1... to big wishes can kill an update at all and lead to a new machine...
As some of you might remember.
When there would be something like a wishlist for the G2 it should be done more "adult" and try to emphasis on basic things and have the fancy wishes at the end of the list..

However..what is basic for one is fancy for the other ...

So.. I ask for opinions...

My infrastructural improvement wishes are...

1) improved knob response
either by algorithm improvement or by having a checkbox that reduces the optical feedback rate in prior to the response...)

2) parameter exclusion from variation changes...
In whatever way..best free assignable..but even a special control value module will do the job in a minimal fashion.. what leads to point 3

3) A control module with independent value and switch output. So button and knob can be used independently..virtually doubling the G2´s´control capacitys.

4) Midihandling on patch level..like a disable for all outsending midimodules in a patch... a very important point...
Changing the outgoing midchannel of midimodules on patchlevel...
Maybe like a poly/mono midi setting on patchlevel..
when set to mono the midchannel is selected as patchparameter..when being poly the individual module settings are used. Except of modules that control between and within slots of cause..the outgoing midi is what creates the mess in session situations.

5) Better display usage...get the stupid "source" tag removed in prior to valuable information... In a way the 2 lines work in many cases as a one line.



So my 5 points...

I would like to ask you to make a post with your 5 points in this thread..
5 points where you would feel a general improvement by structural things.

No soundgenerating or manipulating module wishes... that can be evaluated in another thread... The basic things that get in your way when using the G2..usage issues..or missing functions that effect your workflow negatively. If clavia would be up to structural changes than now...never at a later point.. maybe new modules..but infrastructural changes?..

I like to know if it´s just me singulary that suffers from the above mentioned problems or if others feel the same without having felt the need to critzise it yet.

[JLS]

Your 5 points is only for G2 user.
I G2engine user this points not interesting me

My interesting more more modules for more more sound complexity and creativity.

I not using G2engine like live synth but like experimenting machine.
For live using other hardware synth.

Kamil

[3phase]

True..all this critical points appeard to me on stage with the G2 as main keyboard and in session situation wher i had no time to open the editor...
With the engine you are allmost lost without the editor..But the G2 should be as independent from it as possibel. Its somehow ment as a performance modular...

But there are infrastructural points that would effekt the engine aswell..

Handling of polyphonic information for example... an alternative voice allcation mode would allow certain patches that are impossible now because you never know which voice will be the next one or notes get stolen by the so called round robin allocation the G2 is using wright now...
A convinient allocation mode for many purposes.. but as the name says..it tends to rob voices that might be essential in a patch that uses drones via held keys while internal sequencers access the same sound...

modules that can isolate voices wouldnt hurt either.

[jamos]

I like all of your ideas except the one about slowing the display update rates; that would be a step backwards. (Clavia just did some work to improve the speed of the display updates, in 1.3, if I remember correctly.) Also, don't assume that slowing the display updates will result in faster response elsewhere; it's not necessarily the case.

[3phase]

i dont said that i want slower display..but if its the price for faster knob response i am more than willing to sacrifice that.. I rather have the instrument to react on my hands than having a led light organ...

in ideal there would be checkbox like in the Nm1 editor that frees resources on the expense of reduces optical feedback..
I guess when there wouldnt be limits clavia would have choosen to have it faster allready.. The actual state seems to be equal wighted and dont giving the the readout priority..

This applys aswell to the midi remote module that is rather slow but gets updated very quickly...something that is for a remote display not really necessary... i dont need to see the led bars moving..i need to see their final state... they would still look smooth when updated at a 10th of the actual rate...

However..the Programmers know if its possible or not..
I defenetly would wish a better grip with the G2 controls...
Hope i am not the only one

[blue hell]