*************************************************** 29/07/05 I guess the programmers at Behringer could have a look in there http://www.frontierdesign.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=128 for information. Can BCF users expect such a support ? Steinberg's support for Mackie control is not the best, so I guess everyone is waiting for this "plugin" from you. Cheers. Jérôme. ****************************************************** 05/05/05 I have a little question/suggestion about the Mackie Emulation mode for the BCF (the current emulation as it is) : When you disable the motorfaders, the non-motorized mode is "move" mode, that is to say that when you move the fader, there is a jump on the virtual fader going directly onto the hardware fader's value. In the BCF native mode, there are three modes : motorized, move (the jump mode) and pick up. The pick up mode is very handy because the virtual fader will not move until the real fader reaches its current value. Do you think it would be possible to modify the Mackie emulation mode (and also the other modes, actually) so that when you disable the motors, the default non-motorized mode is "pick up" and not "move". It is VERY important when you want to modify an already existing automation. It is not possible to do it with the motors on, because there are no touch sensors, and once the motors are inactive, if the default mode is "move", modifying an automation is very difficult. This had not bothered me that much until I started to mix tunes, and it became very obvious then, and we got some messages from users having difficulties to modify their automations. I then thought about that. Jérôme. ******************************************************** 11/05/05 The remote control SDK from Behringer is released and available for remote manufacturers. I guess this is the oportunity to implement a native support for the BCF 2000 in Cubase, the way it is in Reason 3 (the support is smashing). I think this is very big news, indeed ! Apparently, Behringer just have to ask for it directly from Steinberg. Regards. Jérôme. ************************************************************ 12/04/05 After a few more months using the BCF 2000 in Mackie mode with Cubase SX (2 and 3) and also after gathering information and wishes from users here in France and on forums, here is a list of improvements that Behringer "should" bring to the BCF 2000 -------------------------------------- 1) about the BCFView utility : - possibility to resize it - possibility to change colours - indication of the hardware lane numbers (1 to 8) below track names appearing in the BCFViewer. Here's an example : Track Names : Guitar Bass Violin Saxo Piano Harmon Drum Singer Lane Names : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 - status LEDs for Solo, Mute and Record, appearing next to the lane number (red S, yellow M, red R) - indication of Flip mode - indication of Motor off Basically, what users want would look like what is available there (but only for Mac and not free of charge) http://www.opuslocus.com/lcxview/ I guess the BCFView utility can be somewhat modified to feature the same things and maybe more. Also, we NEED a Name/Value switching mode (available from a button on the BCF. To me, this is a vital feature ! --------------------------------------------------- 2) on the BCF itself : - remove the Revert function because it does not work with Cubase (it does not have any effect......it is exactly the same with the real Mackie controler, so it is a Cubase problem). - remove the Sendfx (global) mode, because it is useless with SX 2 onwards (and would not be of any use with Cubase VST or SX 1 as they do not support Mackie control). there is no more VSt FX rack, replaced by FX tracks, working like any other track. - assign the removed functions to more useful functions of Cubase SX, such as : * NAME/VALUE* button allowing to switch from parameter names to parameter values in the LCD display. - I found out that when you push the encoders or the buttons, they simply send Note On messages ranging from 0 to 69. The encoders, when pushed, send Note On messages from 32 to 39, BUT, as opposed to the 1 lane buttons, the Shift layers have no effect on them. The encoders always send these messages, BUT according to the mode you are using, it seems that Cubase receives different orders. In PAN mode, it receives the Monitor On command, IN EQ mode it receives EQ general bypass, in Track Send mode it receives Send FX general bypass. But, in INSERT mode, it receives nothing. So, for the encoders, here's what could (and "should") be done : The shift layers should have an effect so that they can send Note On messages from 70 to 77 (first Shift layer) and from 78 to 85 (second Shift layer). Why ? I discovered that it is possible to use the Generic Remote scripts in Cubase SX at the same time as the Mackie scripts, so that we can assign these messages to other functions (like the opening/closing of FX windows) ! It is completely independent from the Mackie protocol ONLY ONE PROBLEM : the "no-shift" layer always corresponds to Note ON from 32 to 39. Once you have created a Generic Remote script where you have assigned the encoders (three layers), if you go to another mode (PAN for instance), the encoders have two functions : the Mackie one + the one you have set in the GR. There must be a solution to this problem, for sure, because I can't find how going into another mode changes the behaviour of Cubase whereas it receives the same message ! - use the unassigned buttons. Some buttons have never been assigned to anything, that's a pity, really. We could have a Solo Defeat button, for instance. ------------------------------------------------------ 3) Master Mode : Users (and I) are asking for the following feature : when you go to MASTER mode, the last Fader should be automatically assigned to the Master fader. Even better, the faders should be automatically assigned to the available Output Busses created in Cubase (with a maximum of 8, of course). Killer for multichannel mixing ! ------------------------------------------------------------- I sincerely hope this will be taken into account by your R and D department. I think these devices are realy good, but the development seems to have been completely stopped since December 2005. A lot of things can be improved on the side of the devices, for sure. regards. Jérôme. ****************************************************************