Hi. Not going to ask for something big, but some of the small changes can give a faster workflow:
When you choose the Media tab in the right section, make a cursor already placed in the search bar, so we could type instantly (FL-Studio and Bitwig have this). If i choose the VST Instrument tab, then again, make the cursor already there too.
In the Plugin Manager when I create a Collection, please don’t allow for double entries. Also, in the main list of plugins, please add another column that will indicate in what collection groups that plugin already exist.
100%. Just adding my #MeToo here as a rather strong request for this NOT to be implemented. This isn’t a jab at the OP, but I actively want this existing capability. My suggested process would be “then don’t create duplicates” or “when you find them, go delete them.” Full control of what I put where is important to me.
Hmm, maybe I don’t understand something. I mean double entries under the same collection. I have a lot of plugins, and the lists are long so I could add the same plugins twice by mistake, which make the list longer. And it doesn’t add the same entries near each other…
Yes, I put the same plugin into the same collection more than once.
There is an option in the dialog to only list plugins that are not part of the active collection. Maybe that can help you with unwanted double entries.
This is a TestSet where I’ve duplicated HALion 7 multiple times. This is what you mean, correct? For me, I WANT (need?) to be able to create duplicates if I choose to. This can manifest itself in the same plug-in/effect being located in different folders. I may want HALion in a Synths folder and in a Samplers folder. And I may want it directly in the Root list too. I may want Decapitator in Dynamics and in Distortion. Or any combination of the above.
If you see a duplicate you don’t want, then just go back into your Plug-in Manager and remove it. If it’s in the wrong place, then just move it. I’m not trying to sound flippant, I’m just identifying that in my opinion, the onus of proper Set management is on the user, and I wouldn’t want the developer to limit our capabilities in that regard. I’m a Power To The People kinda guy, and would rather have full capabilities to do what I want than to be limited for no reason (“no reason” to me, anyway).
I understand the purpose of having identical plugin entries in DIFFERENT folders, but I don’t understand the purpose of having identical entries in the SAME folder (or the root).
Everyone has their own opinion. Both yours and mine are perfectly, and equally, valid.
However, as it regards actual Feature Requests that could change the behavior for ALL users, in my opinion, it doesn’t really matter why “other people may want this” when you’re talking about taking away functionality from everyone else. One could just as easily ask “why does it matter, just delete your duplicate entry.” The difference is that one disposition allows for full functionality for all users, while the other limits functionality for all users. To me, the higher-function “wins.”
You’re absolutely free to ask for the feature request, and it’s valid to you. I’m just asking for it NOT to be implemented because it can ONLY serve to limit people’s options. That’s all. The rest is subjective.
I’m not in favor of simply removing existing features either. But in the case of duplicates in the SAME location (root/folder), I have to agree with the OP; it seems pointless, confusing and error-prone to me. As I said, duplicate entries should be prevented, ONLY in this case, not in general!
I didn’t take away anything.) I asked, how this can be useful to have many of the same effects in the same collection (not the folder). If this is a feature, then what it is for? I have a “compressor” Collection, why do I need 3 ClA-76 in there? (Well, by accident).
I would ask you: Why do you put it there in the first place? You have the freedom to edit your own plugin collections (a feature that as far as I understand a lot of other DAWs don’t even have in the first place), but as always, with freedom (or great power) comes responsibility
I’d rather that Steinberg focus on improving things that are not possible yet and empowering the user (e.g. adding alias names to plugins) instead of trying to limit the user’s possibilities. As @Thor.HOG already wrote, “just delete your duplicate entry”, you have the rights to do so (And if I am brutally honest, it is much quicker to do than to write a FR on the forum).
The FR was to improve this behavior to avoid duplications. For some reason for some it became more or less a drama. Nobody could even explain why they want to have duplicates in the same Collection.
P.S: not sure which DAWs don’t have the taging systems and favorite fx folders. In Bitwig just by selecting the plugin you already can see where it belongs too and send to the right collection folder directly. I have a feeling that many users on this forum didn’t know that other DAWs even exist.
No drama . There are simply many conceivable applications for collections with folders. E.g. grouping by instrument, style, album, customer, quality, complexity, CPU load, etc. Then, of course, it must be possible for a specific plugin (e.g. ModMachine) to be present in let’s say both a “Keyboard FX” folder and a “Guitar FX” folder.
. There are simply many conceivable applications for collections with folders. E.g. grouping by instrument, style, album, customer, quality, complexity, CPU load, etc. Then, of course, it must be possible for a specific plugin (e.g. ModMachine) to be present in let’s say both a “Keyboard FX” folder and a “Guitar FX” folder.