Pinning open/close status for inspector section

Absolutely agree, the top menu is something I never used as well.
I use panning and volume in the respective Volume Fader Tab, as there you have a visual feedback of the volume and the handles are bigger and easier to grab as well.

Also having only the used inserts+sends visible, without all the empty slots would already be a solution, to free up more space.

To be honest, I think the tab system in the left is not practical.
The tabs I need are either always open and I never close them, or they are hidden.
A modular system, where you can build your own inspector would be the best solution I think.

1 Like

@Matthias_Quellmann Is there a road map for fixing the inspector? It really is a workflow problem the way it is designed now. Especially since it has so much potential of being a great workflow aid.

Actually, is there a roadmap of addressing the core UI of Cubase in a way that is more uniform and programmatically more flexible?
Years of observation has lead me to believe that many different programming standards or design decisions have been used over the years when adding new features. Further more, it seems that several aspects of Cubase have been designed without much flexibility in mind (like hard-coded logic rather that OOP for example) which in turn makes changing and updating at a later stage a spaghetti mess with dependencies all over the place. I understand such a change would be a massive undertaking but a necessary one for future development and code management. I’m sure this has been discussed more than once during project meetings at Steinberg, no?

3 Likes

Yes, of course. With every version we are improving the user interface, both on the backend technology as well as the actual user interface. With Cubase 10 a new user interface and control concept was introduced and if you compare each version after that you will find many areas that got the new consistent user interface. The Inspector, or precisely the Left Zone, is still on the To Do list, but it is on the roadmap. We know the limitations and issues of the current implementation and there are already concepts and ideas how to solve those. But I can’t make any statements on when this will be realised.

9 Likes

Since this is now the official thread for this issue I just wanted to leave a link to one of the original threads from 2016 especially since it shows how long this issue has been an issue.

Too many times the original threads get closed on issues (sometimes) as a practice of continually kicking the can down the road…
Don’t want that to happen with this issue cause it is annoying af and I look forward to the day …if ever.

In case anyone has forgotten; this issue is still super annoying.

1 Like

TLDR,
It’s really a slap in the face to act like you care about what the customer is telling you is at a premium only to release new versions w/the same problems and then locking threads…

Like soooo many other software companies you have to start realizing that our “forgotten” sadly means they don’t GAS.
There are issues that they’ve kicked down the road w/promises to only release a new version w/the same issue(s).
It’s as if they think a new version will make you go away or, as previously stated…they truly don’t GAS.

Then they’ll have some new guy come in w/rah rah, followed by questionnaires then a thread on the upcoming roadmaps all to keep your hopes up but alas, your issue never gets fixed.
Yet, asa you start a new thread they magically lock all the old threads with the almost decade long issue.
Cubase is dying a slow death. EVERYTHING about this software is bloated and unless they rebuild it, many users are already looking for an alternative… myself included.

What are these brazen assumptions based on?

1 Like

To be fair, there’s plenty of alternatives out there, what is it that you’re still looking for?

Feel free to follow where the topic and the thread stems from…everything is explained already.

1 Like