Bug with MIDI output?

[creal]

Hello,

I am facing a very strange problem.

I have a digital piano (the Roland FP-30X). I wish to make a simple workspace to change the sounds of the piano.

To achieve to this, I use the MIDI implementation chart which gives MSB, LSB and program change values for each sound. So far so good.

I made the workspace, but it does not work. At first I think: "I must did a mistake, with a cable or so". But I noticed that MIDI was sent over the MIDI output rack but not to the device (when I open the trace window, it does not indicate the device in brackets). To make it simpler, I made another workspace. Very straightforward: 3 sliders (MSB, LSB, program change) and another module to send a MIDI note on. Even this patch does not work.

I was running Usine with september 2022 update. So I decided to try the last Usine update. I open the "simple patch". All the modules and in/out were duplicated. I had to remove all the duplicates. And the MIDI note on message was sent (I could hear the note playing on the piano when pressing the button "create"). I thought: "okay, it is just a bug that was fixed". So I open my "big workspace" to control the sounds of the digital piano. But that did not work. Even worse. None of the MIDI messages were sent. I tried another time with the september update, and it was the same.

I doubt my patches are bad. But in the case they are, you can try by yourself.

What could be wrong with my setup? When I use REAPER and its MIDI plugin, everything is fine. I can load the sounds I want. There must be something with Usine. Or maybe I am crazy.

Thanks for your help,

creal.

EDIT : now I have the same error each time I open Usine, it just says it's in "setOutputMidiDevice"

[creal]

I finally got it working fine during the night

I changed the USB cable, and USB port, I unwired/rewired all modules, I reset the MIDI devices, unticked/ticked them, removed/inserted the MIDI out/in from the rack, etc. and now it works. But I will never know what happened exactly.

Now I am wondering how the patch could be improved before sharing it with the community (workspace attached).

Do you have any tips on optimizing the patch, please? I think about technical stuff (working with less modules as possible) but also GUI (better way for hiding lists, or just seeing modules/cables, etc.) and organization (split patch into multiple patches, etc.).

Thanks,

creal.

[senso]

good news for your bug!
I think that your wkp could improved in term of GUI ?
It looks like that on my computer:

[creal]

Yes, the IB is optimized but not the patch.

The problem is that parameters of an item cannot be changed independently from the control panel and the IB. For example, if I change the item size of listbox in the IB, the same valu is applied in the control panel. Only the size and the position of the items seem to be independant. But it's not very clear. Furthermore, there are plenty of position item bugs when using an item both visible in control panel and IB. I hope it will be fixed someday.

Apart from that, I also faced cable display and connection bugs with subpatches. The same that are present for years. It happens when you move/edit/remove input/outputs. I am always forced to unwire then rewire the cables. I guess these are known issues. But I also hope it will be fixed someday. Those two problems are quite annoying in my opinion.

Don't hesitate if you need more info.

[SylvainT]

Hello,

Two topics there.
First controls in patches/racks and IB.
In my opinion, it is unsolvable unless creating GUI setup for patch and GUI setup for IB. This option is not relevant, you can imagine.
I can understand that you want to control a param from both side. Why don't you use two controls, one in the patch, the other in IB with in and out connected thru pass if change ? Much simple to deal with.

Cabling issues in sub-patch. There's no bug there. Inlet/outlet are referenced by name. If you change names, Usine can't recognize the input/output. We have two solutions then. Cabling the wire somewhere or erase the wire. The first solution is more efficient. You can see you have an issue. Otherwise not. For complex patch, you can have dozen of wires coming from everywhere and you will loose something if your wire is unplugged.

Sylvain

[creal]

Hello,

Two topics there.
First controls in patches/racks and IB.
In my opinion, it is unsolvable unless creating GUI setup for patch and GUI setup for IB. This option is not relevant, you can imagine.
I can understand that you want to control a param from both side. Why don't you use two controls, one in the patch, the other in IB with in and out connected thru pass if change ? Much simple to deal with.

Cabling issues in sub-patch. There's no bug there. Inlet/outlet are referenced by name. If you change names, Usine can't recognize the input/output. We have two solutions then. Cabling the wire somewhere or erase the wire. The first solution is more efficient. You can see you have an issue. Otherwise not. For complex patch, you can have dozen of wires coming from everywhere and you will loose something if your wire is unplugged.

Sylvain

Hello Sylvain,

You're right, there are two topics, and, in my opinion, two problems:

1) I understand that it's not relevant to create different GUI setups (one for the control panel, one for the IB), but since Usine let the user the ability to resize, reposition and "repercent" the modules for the IB only, it should work as intended. At the moment, there are sometimes GUI bugs, where an item suddenly appears at the bottom right (for example) of the control panel because we changed its size or position from the IB. Someday, Olivier told me to avoid using the "always visible" feature with different size/position. But it's a pity. I could create different modules, as you suggest. This is great for a knob, or simple controls. But if you look at my patch, it would force me to create 9 new listboxes just because the "items font size factor" is the same between the control panel and the IB (but also because of the GUI problem mentioned above).

2) There are three ideas. First, it would be nice to let the user decide what happens when an input/output is removed/renamed from a subpatch (disconnect the modules that went to the subpatch removed inlet/outlet, or let the cable appear to tell the user it has to be reconnected). Both options are great in my opinion. Second, you said that cabling the wire somewhere is more efficient, but it would be clearer to the user if the cable then appear as dots, or with another colour. Whatever but not just as it is now. Furthermore, sometimes the wire is cabled on another inlet, which leads to an unwanted behaviour most of the time. Third, when dealing with the subpatch inputs/outputs there is clearly an intended behaviour with subpatch views (from totally collapsed to completely unfold). It sometimes changes whereas it's not decided by the user, and there are also cables that look disconnected whereas they are not (there is an inconsistent and useless hybrid view, that often replaces the current view, see pic).

Thanks,

creal.

[SylvainT]

Hello,

1) I said something wrong, there already is a way to edit the size in patch and in IB separetely. But it seems it's not working. I will talk with Senso.
But as you see in the workspace we edited together, there are many ways to achieve what you are looking for.

2) Maybe it is a good idea to add dots or red color on the wire.
Your very last topic is a known issue, not such a big deal, but we are going to find a solution.

Sylvain

[creal]

Hello,

1) Thank you. Yes, you showed me some very interesting tweaks.
2) Okay, that's fine.

creal.