Date   

Re: Default LED state for stomps on power-up?

Kenny Lohr
 
Edited

That looks like the perfect solution.  Seems like that would require Uno2 and the accompanying editor though, correct?  Is there a way to do this using Uno1.0.4?   

On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 10:27 AM <savilior@...> wrote:

I believe you can use INIT_BANK to initialize the states: 
e.g.

INIT_BANK Abelton =
{ SwitchOn Track1
  SwitchOn Track2
  SwitchOn Track3
  SwitchOn Track4
}  

 

 


Re: Default LED state for stomps on power-up?

savilior@...
 

I believe you can use INIT_BANK to initialize the states: 
e.g.

INIT_BANK Abelton =
{ SwitchOn Track1
  SwitchOn Track2
  SwitchOn Track3
  SwitchOn Track4
}  


Default LED state for stomps on power-up?

Kenny Lohr
 

Hello all!  

I'm using the Uno 1.0.4 software in a somewhat atypical way.  For the most part, it's working great.  One last detail I'm hoping to resolve, but it's not a tragedy if I can't...it's still working really nicely. 

I'm using the FCB1010 with Uno to control my Ableton Live set, with multitrack backing tracks.  I've mapped controller messages to go to previous locator, go to next locator, start and stop playback.  To start the next song, all I have to do is tap pedal 2, then pedal 3.  Works really well.  I just realized as I'm typing that I could do this on just one pedal, so maybe I'll improve that. Anyway...Stompboxes work very well for turning tracks on and off, since this gives decent feedback at a glance which tracks are active and which aren't, even without bidirectional communication.   Most often it's the click track I want to turn off, for example when there's a drum track.  Or turn it back on when I or someone else needs a cue.  For various reasons I like the flexibility of turning guitar tracks on and off, and I may decide to turn the bass track on and play something else.  The only minor issue with all that and using stomps is getting the track status sync'd with the LEDs.

It looks like the stomps default to "off" when the FCB is powered up.  The workaround I came up with is to make sure I save the Live set with those tracks disabled, so when the Live set is opened and the FCB is turned on, the two are in sync.  Then just turn on the tracks I need using the foot switches.  Not terrible at all.

I realized I might be able to just take an available preset and have it turn all the stomps on (and not send any messages), and that's ehh...OK.  I'd give up my only available pedal (in the bank anyway) to avoid stomping 4-5 pedals, which only takes a couple seconds during setup.  Maybe combining the messages for 'next locator' and 'start playback' will free up some pedals and that will make more sense...assuming there's nothing I'm missing.   

My question comes in here... I've read the manual, and maybe the logic with the available tools isn't apparent to me.  Is there a way to have the stomps default LED status "On" when the FCB is powered up?   Or maybe even better...define what each stomp's state is on power-up?


Re: Is it possible to condense this UnO2 Control Center Code??? #UnO2

ossandust
 

On Mon, May 9, 2022 at 10:07 PM, Alf Schroth wrote:
add additional memory to the FCB101, maybe on a daughter board that can be installed
The LG-FCB upgrade kit did exactly that (http://www.lg-fcb.com/) . It was on the market for a few years (with little to no success) - it has been replaced by the external TinyBox.


Re: Conditionals challenge

Mike Watkinson
 
Edited

Thanks for the all the replies everyone - it is much appreciated

If anyone has a brainwave on how to make two 1010 switches function like the Record and Play/Stop buttons of a cassette deck transport that's where I hoped to go with this...


Re: Is it possible to condense this UnO2 Control Center Code??? #UnO2

Alf Schroth
 

I agree with you. How many 30 year old electronic technology is still atound and being used today? I still own my Yamaha DX7 where I bought and installed a daughter board called E! that added numerous enhancements (example: 10 banks of 32 sounds).

Wouldn’t it be fantastic if someone could figure out a way to add additional memory to the FCB101, maybe on a daughter board that can be installed. (just a thought)

On Mon, May 9, 2022 at 1:45 PM Jack Fenton via groups.io <jack_fenton=ymail.com@groups.io> wrote:
Yes, it is amazing what you have done with 30 year old technology!  You would think that at some point in time, Behringer could make an updated product with more memory and more functionality. But then again, it is probably good business for you that they haven't.  I use UNO2 on this one to control my Nord Stage 2 EX and my Hammond SK2. 

I also have a Nektar Pacer, that has way more functionality (but no SysEX). Also, I have to attached external expression pedals as it has none of it's own.  It has 24 banks (they call them presets) and an additional 2 special banks. One for DAW control and the other for transport control.  It also has USB functionality (including power).  I'm sure they are likely selling a lot of these.  There is also an online editor to program this device. Right now, this is my primary device for controlling things at my desktop computer.  

I also have a FC-300 (bought used) but it can only be programmed through the tap-dance method or sending a SysEX dump. No editor.




--
Best regards, Alf

--
Regards,
Alf
🪗 🎶🎤


Re: [Feature Suggestion]

savilior@...
 

Oh, I didn't think of a non blocking use for myself but I saw that another user defined a footswitch on his FCB1010 UnO2 to turn on the relay Switch1 for 10 seconds (with a wait of course) in order to activate a smoke machine. However if he presses this smoke machine footswitch he can't do anything until the 10 seconds pass so he has to coordinate his act around this limitation.
I don't know if there are a lot of such use cases but code wise it should be only a small modification.


Re: [Feature Suggestion]

Jack Fenton
 

For users that don't want a programming language I think UNO 1.0.4 and the editor are super!  I guess you will never please everyone, but I'm happy !


Re: [Feature Suggestion]

ossandust
 

It seems like most feature requests are things which were available in our earlier Gordius Little Giant controllers, and deliberately left out to keep the complexity down
For the delay command in the Little Giant you had the choice between a blocking delay, non-blocking delay, long-press delay, long-release delay, (absolute or clock-synced delay) ... 
I remember it was quite complex for the user to get it all programmed correctly. Same for UnO2: everything which can be linked to a switch (preset, effect or trigger) already has a "short press" action, so you would have to do special tricks to combine that with a long-press action.
The up/down switches in UnO2 already have a long press action, which is too obvious to abandon (start auto-scrolling banks up or down)
Implementing a non-blocking wait is easy, but of course the complexity is that you want to do other things during a non-blocking wait. At the end of the wait the controller needs to process the rest of the original preset contents, while you might already have activated another preset in the mean time, so which one is active then? and so on... 

I did introduce this "programming language" concept, because it allowed adding more features without making the editor more bloated (I remember the hundreds of checkboxes and dropdownboxes in the LittleGiant editor, growing after each firmware release) , but now I'm convinced that an ever growing command set might be as bad. I already get plenty of complaints about the learning curve and stuff like "this sucks, when will you release a graphical editor"... (never!)  


Re: Is it possible to condense this UnO2 Control Center Code??? #UnO2

Jack Fenton
 

Yes, it is amazing what you have done with 30 year old technology!  You would think that at some point in time, Behringer could make an updated product with more memory and more functionality. But then again, it is probably good business for you that they haven't.  I use UNO2 on this one to control my Nord Stage 2 EX and my Hammond SK2. 

I also have a Nektar Pacer, that has way more functionality (but no SysEX). Also, I have to attached external expression pedals as it has none of it's own.  It has 24 banks (they call them presets) and an additional 2 special banks. One for DAW control and the other for transport control.  It also has USB functionality (including power).  I'm sure they are likely selling a lot of these.  There is also an online editor to program this device. Right now, this is my primary device for controlling things at my desktop computer.  

I also have a FC-300 (bought used) but it can only be programmed through the tap-dance method or sending a SysEX dump. No editor.





Re: [Feature Suggestion]

chrisw_63
 

I can see a good use for long press detection - the one you mentioned would be very nice to have.  But I don't see any use for a non-blocking Wait.  Could you give an example where it would be useful?


[Feature Suggestion]

savilior@...
 
Edited

[Long Press] Thanks so much. As a guitar player I was considering other devices and frustrated by their limitations and high price. I was not decisive about the FCB1010 but as I came across UnO, as a programmer I was immediately sold. It hasn't arrived yet but I already read the manual. Therefore I was wondering in case there will be versions releases, if I may put forward few suggestions which I think would not be complicated to implement and will expand the functionality considerably. So here is for all its worth:
 
  1. Long press - as I understand the UnO2 identifies switch press and switch release. I think it would be quite easy to be able to identify a long press too. This would enable reacting to long pressing a footswitch and thus having all the footswitches that are not assigned as triggers free to make an additional action. e.g. this can enable a mode where a long press on say the Down goes to the direct bank and long press Up expects the next presses to be a bank number. Or a long press on any of the 1 to 10 footswitches can go to a matching direct bank (direct bank 1, direct bank 2...) or fire an extended desired action or whatever.
  2. I noticed the Wait command is blocking. I believe it would be better if it is made asynchronous by moving the timestamp check to the main loop with a variable so it wouldn't block other actions. I think that this limitation is also in the "While".
Thanks,
Savi


Re: Is it possible to condense this UnO2 Control Center Code??? #UnO2

ossandust
 

On Fri, May 6, 2022 at 11:24 AM, Jack Fenton wrote:
Maybe more of a Macro than a function as there are no function parameters or return value.  I'm working on a project and tried this technique to reduce my footprint but was unsuccessful, because I still had to set variables before calling the SendTrigger
It might be nice to introduce this concept of a function in the UnO2 "programming language", (I would definitely call it "function", all programming languages do support parameterless functions without return value). It would still do exactly the same as what you can do now, but it might be less confusing than reusing the SendTrigger construct as we do now. This would also allow to introduce optional function parameters, something you have to do now by setting a variable prior to calling the "SendTrigger". But again, in the end it would do just the same and therefore consume the same amount of resources.
I think that's the biggest issue with this whole UnO2 approach : it might look like you can do things which are obvious for higher programming languages running on a computer, but you should not forget that the code needs to get compiled into something that can run on a 30 year old 8-bit microcontroller with very limited resources. That's the main challenge... 


Selling FCB1010 w/ Uno2 Chip

Andy Roberts
 

If anyone out there is in market for a very gently used FCB1010 w Uno2 chip, give me a shout - acroberts@gmail....com. $100 net to me, but PayPal, Venmo, etc works. Shipping from Cleveland, OH area and will split that cost. Phone is 44oh-seven25-four655


Re: Sysex for epression pedal UNO V1.3

Synthaxe
 

On May 9, 2022, ossandust wrote:
You would have been as disappointed if I would have added the Roland specific sysex system with checksum, because the Yamaha uses a different sysex format. That's why I believe it's not a good idea to add brand specific functionality, unless it's in a brand specific firmware chip like the FCB-505 or UnO4Kemper firmware.
Thanks X, yeah that's a good point.

The computer MIDI software I used gave me the ability to do the SYSEX checksum calculation in raw maths, and that's what I did. (Incl. summing all data in a loop, and mod-ing result; tho it's like 10yrs ago, so my memory is rusty.)   

So that would be quite a bit more programming for you implement and not sure if the code-space is there.  So not sure if it's possible or justifiable.  But pls add it to the list of requested features.

Cheers.


Re: Sysex for epression pedal UNO V1.3

ossandust
 

On Sat, May 7, 2022 at 09:55 AM, Synthaxe wrote:
BOSS VF-1 and Yamaha VL70-m both require checksums in their SYSEX. 

I've used the FCB1010 in this way before, but needed a computer with software to do the calculations. 

I presumed it would be possible with the UNO2 v1.3 and disappointed that it's not as that's an important feature I needed
You would have been as disappointed if I would have added the Roland specific sysex system with checksum, because the Yamaha uses a different sysex format. That's why I believe it's not a good idea to add brand specific functionality, unless it's in a brand specific firmware chip like the FCB-505 or UnO4Kemper firmware.


Re: Sysex for epression pedal UNO V1.3

chrisw_63
 

Yeah.. I'm all for adding new features, and a checksum is simple math, but supporting a non-standard SYSEX feature like that is WAY out in left field.  I can understand using SYSEX to send setup messages to a device, but to use it for an active, changing value like pedal position?? That's just plain nuts!  Roland has gotten away with this stuff because of their historic reputation for quality and the fact that very few people actually used those SYSEX features.  They've been riding that reputation, charging a premium for the Roland name, and letting their quality suffer for years now, and the Roland name is starting to tarnish.  With the increase in popularity of MIDI control in home studios and with people publishing their own music, Roland is going to get a wake-up call sooner or later.  They'll either become a niche company with a few proprietary products or get with the program and standardize.
<end soapbox rant>


Re: Sysex for epression pedal UNO V1.3

Synthaxe
 

BOSS VF-1 and Yamaha VL70-m both require checksums in their SYSEX. 

I've used the FCB1010 in this way before, but needed a computer with software to do the calculations. 

I presumed it would be possible with the UNO2 v1.3 and disappointed that it's not as that's an important feature I needed. So yes, I too would very much like this feature.

And I still love the v1.3 upgrade.  Some awesome features there.  Thanks! :-)


Re: Sysex for epression pedal UNO V1.3

Jack Fenton
 

Roland implements checksum into most  (if not all) of it's products and the same way. 

Without a valid checksum, I doubt if SysEX would work for any Roland product.
If you can make VALUE a readable variable, then that would prove might useful. 


Re: Is it possible to condense this UnO2 Control Center Code??? #UnO2

Jack Fenton
 

That would be awesome, thanks!

241 - 260 of 9136