BillW wrote:Today I learned I'm supposed to not like the interface.
learned that the appearance of what I am using to make music is entirely unimportant (and so I guess it follows that my impulse to learn how to put nice finishes on guitars, lovingly restore my vintage drums, heck, even wipe them down, was wrongheaded at worst and misguided at best).
Also, every last joule of development energy at Acoustica should be spent on "under the hood" improvements and feature additions. The appearance of Mixcraft should be of no consideration whatsoever, because attracting new users is of no importance and the company can survive on upgrade fees from the existing user base.
Seriously, I like
the interface, as such, I just think that there could be some minor improvements made to its look that would go a long way toward making it more attractive (following current graphic design trends, whether you like them or not) and fit better with the main window.
Those who disagree with me, give me the benefit of the doubt for a second, and do a little math: how many licenses do you think Acoustica would need to sell to pay their graphic artist to change the resource files?
Keeping in mind that people download an eval copy, poke at it, and make their decision whether to buy their license for it rather quickly. Some are put off, some are attracted, who knows their reasons? 5 licenses? 10? Their cost of fulfillment is pretty low, it's downloaded software.
10 more people buy it than otherwise would have due to slicker graphics? $900 buys you a lot of graphic artist these days, and if they stay with the program, 2 years later, you get $500 from them in upgrade fees, which $500 was an incentive for our intrepid devs to put whatever cool features and under-the-hood improvements in.
It is to the benefit of us, the established user base, for Acoustica to attract new users, by any means. Frankly, users of other programs popular with the "kids" who come to my studio think that Mixcraft looks a little outdated (to use a polite term). It's not until I show them what it can do and play them a few mixes and tell them that you can get it for $90 that they are suitably impressed.
I would rather not have to start on the back foot when demoing my favorite DAW. Simple as that. Art changes are easy. They don't (usually) induce bugs, they are a big "wow" when you send out review copies to the press, and they signify change when you put out a new version of a program, no matter what has actually changed under the hood.
that the looks mean little for most of the people who are already familiar with the DAW, but they can have real benefits for us grizzled veterans. They can bring more users, which means more money for the devs and more participants in the forums, which means more knowledge and more fun for all. We're already getting some SONAR refugees, how great is that?
Just pulling your chains - I get the point. I vote for making the "tweak" file easier to manage and then letting the community be the ones to design custom "skins".
I'd love to see a dedicated thread where we share mixskin.ini files like mick's (if he wants to)
I've tried going in to the mixrez folder and working on the resources with Photoshop, but I couldn't find the mixer knobs (the colors of which are too bright for me), and the texture change that I tried to make to the notorious end panels didn't work out.