I’d have no qualms whatsoever about modifying an XML file to create device maps but it’s gotta be easier than that to appeal to most users. Why not simply…
Go to Devices
Add New Device
Name your device
Select MIDI ports (bonus points of multiple controllers can be combined into one)
Click Learn
Begin moving parameters (buttons, knobs, faders), they create on screen automatically for each new message received (i.e. I click Learn just once, move a bunch of stuff)
Turn Learn off
Right click parameters to change type: toggle button, n-state button (example: my synth has a 3 state button for voices and a 5 state-button for effect-type), fader, knob, transport control
Let users move those controls around on the GUI to a layout they’re happy with
Maybe offer some different fader caps, knob designs, button styles and icons, just to have some options, change background color…
Click OK to save and exit
Now, that device is available to be directly mapped to plugin parameters. Have those mappings get retained automatically and recalled the next time. Have them activate when that plugin has focus. If no plugin in focus, allow that device to be mapped to DAW functions.
Because it’s an API which means that the spec is not fixed as you’re describing it.
If i’m presuming correctly, this allows manufacturers to link elements from Cubase and wrap it in a form that can be communicated with hardware beyond the usual standard conventions a generic mapping environment would permit. An API needs to be seen as a ‘hook’ into Cubase, rather than a user interface which you’re describing above.
As an API there will be a related scripting language such as Javascript too. Meaning that you can develop functions that parse incoming and outgoing data into a format that is suitable for your hardware… Potentially this means that the API could be used to send parameter names and values as strings to displays.
If you’re just doing a standard mapping you won’t need to touch such things, however. I’d imagine generic 8 knob, 8 fader templates will exist to be edited with the MIDI CC parameters.
If you look at how PreSonus set their external scripts up it’s very much in this way, they also offer the chance to build a graphical interface with your own graphical elements too - If Steinberg take this path it means that you would see a manufacturer created recreation of your hardware within the DAW.
Of course, i could be completely wrong, but that’s how i’d envision an API to work.
Thanks for not half-assing it and saying it will be done in Q1 or later. I would rather wait and get a fully baked functionality than spending a lot of frustrating hours, trying to get it to work.
i use a steinberg houston controller and noticed in the device menu there is no longer a houston option…in c10.5 its there and all previous versions ive been using it for years i hope its supported in c11.
id try it out but its late here and im knackered ive spent all day trying to authorise c11 and once it was done it hadnt carried any prefs over from c10.5
The interface that looked like a synth could hold all mapped controls, and we could use that gui to then position them, set as fader, set as knob, button, toggle switches, range of control, resolution, even groups, if/and statements, whatever really… (mainly map/learn more than 8 ctrls, set ranges, and be able to modulate on the fly for me tho) -one qc slot used per full controller mapping preferably
(That would be a possible 8 controllers, fully mapped, working one track - i said possible
Agreed, it would be nice to know if this is definitely pushed back to other paid versions, or if possible will be included in C11 too. But i just don’t think anything will be said further.
I’m on the fence with upgrading straight away, and so will probably wait till next year. This would’ve tipped the scales unquestionably.
ok ive been trying to get my steinberg houston too work with c11…but its not working…any idea how to get this too work in c11?in c10.5 its an option in the device menu its simple you just choose houston and everything auto maps in a second and works brilliantly but its not in c11.
i hope someone can help thanks
It seems like they have dropped Roland MCR-8,Radikal SAC-2k and Tascam US-428 too. So instead of being a grate improvement it have become a shortcoming.
yep totally agree…ive had to go back to cubase 10.5 for now im hoping can use houston with c11 somehow.
one idea i had was to copy the devices settings over from a previous copy of cubase if this is possible but i cant find the folder which contains all of the devices which are usuable in cubase…
does anyone know were the folder is id like to try it…thanks
I am - honestly speaking - a little bit concerned. Why?
Well - it is a great idea to create a midi remote API. But: Will that lead us into a situation where lack of working remote controllers will lead to Steinberg telling us that it is now the fault of the providers of the midi-controllers that the integration does not work -because they do not program the necessary software that uses the remote API?
What I am trying to say: Please, Steinberg - dont forget to include a well designed GENERIC REMOTE CONTROLLER EDITOR that allows us users to set up controllers nicely. THe API alone is not sufficient - for it will lead to a situation where you, steinberg, will delegate responsibility to the controller suppliers.
A GENERIC REMOTE CONTROLLER EDITOR - if well thought and designed - could also Replace the Midi device editor (these two things could easily be put in one single thing).
Another fear that I have: Continue to neglect EUCON integration (there is no relevant improvement made in C11 concerning EUCON. All the bugs and flaws still exisit - see mixer visibility. This is a shame!) - and tell us that there are now much better alternatives via the MIDI API.
Avid has sdk for their protocol. But it is c++ (i think, it might be more) and if steinberg provide a sdk the cover cubase/nuendo in a good way any one can do the “integration” and the the avid controllers to work as you like. Of course this will be a big task, and it will not be easy. But in theory it could be done. A hot shot cubase user like Hans Zimmer can tell his assistant to hire a programmer to fix it for him, but for most user it will be out of reach. But if it is no need for NDA and that limitations company’s like Qcon can make their own drivers for their hardware and give or sell it to there customers. Steinberg on the other hand can if they like put up the existing avid controllers code on gitlab and say. Here it is, fixit it your self, we will only provide drivers for yamaha controllers.
