I invite Pro Tools users to use ProControl studio but most of them use Logic?????????

[Tightbeats]

[sidereal]

But it does take away from Digi resources. The fact is, engineering is a very expensive resource. I have no idea what it would take to do what you ask, but I do know that it would take time and money. I would prefer they spend the time and money to work on Pro Tools software rathar than spend time making another software app work on ProControl that won't even be able to take advantage of PC's features. I suppose we'll have to respectfully disagree on this.

I hate to sound like a broken record, but if you want a control surface for Logic, I think you really need to talk to Emagic.

[houser]

>I hate to sound like a broken record, but if you want a control >surface for Logic, I think you really need to talk to Emagic.

Andf they wanted to write for the Procontrol the last time I
checked on this a couple of months back.

If Digi don't release a SDK for the PC, they will have to design their own surface, or work with another company that
will release their SDk, like perhaps Radical technologies.
Make no, mistake they will...
I would have preferred to us the PC for both PT and Logic.
..and I think it would have made business sense too..
I can't imagine why you would not open up the PC for
other apps....the depth of use in using it with PT would still be there...
but wadda I know...

dos grumpy centavos and another broken record..;-)

j

[Tightbeats]

[Jules]

"If there is a desparate need for a control surface for Logic that's Emagic's problem, what has it got to do with Digi?"

You have missed the point of this thread. it was for - studios with ProControl that want clients used to Logic to be able to use their studio.

"OK, this was my last try ... I give up! Greg"

It's just a matter of reading the thread carefully and taking onboard the different needs and working methods of the other posters, take those blinkers off! Hello?



This has been a long Digi-Nag. I would just like to say I love my ProConrol and wouldn't swap it for anything else.



Jules

[Tightbeats]

[sidereal]

>Lets just agree to disagree and get back to making music.

Good lord, I agree. Jules, read back. We've tried to answer your specific questions and you keep getting angry. I think the reason is you're asking for something that doesn't exist. We've even tried to tell you WHY it doesn't exist and why it's fruitless to try and make it exist.

I guess I'm no help. I'm done here.

[Greg Malcangi]

Hi Tightbeats,

<< Greg: Just out of curiosity, what is your affiliation with digidesign? >>

I'm just a customer.

<< Do you have any professional experience on how easy or difficult it is to implement new software features into a product? >>

Yes, I'm a qualified C++ programmer and have worked professionally in this capacity (though not for DigiDesign).

DAE and TDM were designed specifically at the time to provide accessability to the Digi hardware by third parties without having to give away an SDK containing the PTools software itself. However, with the exception of the monitor section, the ProControl doesn't really have any functions of it's own. All it does is control the functions in the PTools software/hardware. As I understand it, for Emagic (or anyone else) to write code for the ProControl would mean Digi giving away the code for all the functions within PTools (controllable by the ProControl) and then for Emagic to incorporate those functions within Logic. Is the resulting software Digi or Emagic? I can't see Digi giving away it's source code like this and rightly so, it would be commercial suicide. The only other option I can see is the one I've mentioned, turning the ProControl into a generic MIDI controller.

It would be nice to have the control surface of a Boeing 747 in a truck but what is the point if the truck doesn't have the same underlying functions as a Jumbo? Getting Boeing to provide an SDK for the flight control surface is not going to make much difference unless you turn the truck into a 747!!

If there is a desparate need for a control surface for Logic that's Emagic's problem, what has it got to do with Digi?

OK, this was my last try ... I give up!

Greg