GP4 vs. GP3: Widget sizing @ old Gigs loaded in GP4

General discussion about Gig Performer
1

Hello, i wanted to bring my point down vs. a post donne in another thread from one of the devs, versus the widget size, -----> vs. when you load a old Gig from GP3 fresh into GP4.

sorry, this turned out a quite difficult post to do…and its very long
( but i can´t sit now longer on it)

( i just started fresh working with GP4, since my arm64-only related “plugins won´t load” Issue has been figured out now, and has been solved. ( with PA-unlocked Version) )

In my case, this is NOT a trivial small unconvenience.
In fact i was kind of ranting when i stumbled over it 2 days ago or so…

The frontspace of the first Racks/first Gig that i loaded in GP4 was completly screwed.
Impossible to use, impossible to make music, …because i was even not seeing whats there and what the controls are meant to do. ( which i usually have to check first, to get back the overview of what the controls are doing)

I had to depict first the whole thing, re-understand what my frontpanel was meant to do,
…then i could start to put things back into place.

Just: i had quasi to redo or resize everything . I mean everything !
(and thats here my point ! …and why i post)
I went thru two Rackspaces within that Gig, …and that was it, …i quit GP4 and had enough for that day, instead of making music. …Ok, no pasa nada…no problem :wink:

My fear is now, that i will have to go thru all my Gigs, all Frontpanels, of all the Gigs/Racks that i really like to use, and have to redo all frontpanels completly,…resizing everything.
Then my reaction to this is: This can´t be it ! …no ?

my RE:
I don´t know what your situation is, and how much playground you have to readjust here something in GP4 ?
but if you have, would it be VERY welcome if you had again a look on that matter !

What i can say is:
in my case was it a major drawback that the Faders seem to appear way wider.
This caused situations where i even could not see all controls.
Since i use "doubled Faders (but beeinhg very narrow) " when i do “Crossfade functionality widgets”, was this all causing major irritation .
Regular faders were one above the other on the sides of the panel, “small doubled Faders” looked like beeing each, a own Fader on its own.
( please see screenshot to get an idea of how a frontrack can look, it was in fact this Rackspace / well, its even not fully restored, i just see now)

This thing is as sayed not a trivial one.
The workload to redo my old GP3 RAcks will be IMMENSE.
and its especially that type of work nobody wants to do, …and definitly not fun to do again, …repeating old work.

i post, also because i wonder if you are even not aware that this could cause such major problems, since most frontpanels i see here posted are way way more “airy” or “spacey” than what i do.
With way bigger controls, way less controls, never that density that my regular panels have.

…in my case this is coming from using several Novation Launch control XLs,
= one row with 8 Faders + 3 Rows with 8 Knobs each, + buttons, which i use rarely, just single ones.
i put two full LC-XL into a 3HE or 4HE Rack.
So thats 16 faders side by side

what would help me, is, if you could tell that there could be a improvement,
or to tell me that there definitly won´t be any, or at least not in the near future,
so i can decide how i want to proceed.

i wanted to add some screenshots and just had to see that my GP3 Gig is screwed again, yet i reworked it. so i will open also a new thread to understand how preset saving, GP3 versus GP4 HAS to happen, to avoid this situation. (since i will use GP3 and GP4 side by side)

again: the idea here is to give an idea of what density my frontpanels look.
the upper shot is the panel from GP4, mostly restored, but not donne perfectly.
The second shot is the same Gig loaded in GP3,… should have been a ok version, but its not, so its screwed again ( not shure if the type of “screwing” is in GP 3 vs. 4 the same).
third shot just for completness. ( but again, thats the GP3 one, which should have loaded correctly, since / i´ll do a own thread on that matter to discuss the Save preset thing there).

i understand that shot three, shows the normal…vs. this situation
and again, shot 1 is not showing how the original was looking ( and i just see: its even not fully restored…and i probably even don´t understand how to do)

GP3 vs 4_front_GP4rewrk1
GP3 vs 4_front_GP4rewrk11242×934 228 KB

GP3 vs 4_GP3screwedagain1
GP3 vs 4_GP3screwedagain11133×847 213 KB

GP3vs4_GP3back_scewedagain1
GP3vs4_GP3back_scewedagain1937×772 767 KB

2

Can you upload your GP3 File?

3

i can do that, if you want to check something. but you don´t have to redo there something, since thats my work (edit: and since i know how helpful of a person you are :wink: )
Rhode_3DRV_1-1.gig (498.1 KB)

again: this is nolonger the original file, as it was bevore i loaded it into GP4 as well, and then saved from there, unluckily.

i then rework that back and the frontpanel within GP3, and saved it again from GP3,
but something went here wrong.

i definitly saved later the same file from GP4, into a new directory with a slightly chnaged name.

so i wonder, …and i missed that question above in my OG post:
" if just loading an old Gig into GP4, can “change” here something allready ?"
(my guess is: it should not )

the same as GP4
4_EP+BS_3DRV_1-1.gig (3.4 MB)

well, i even think now, that my new GP4 file is also screwed again.
i don´t think i kept that frontpanel like this.

my point on all this:
i like to understand whats going on, and what i as a user have to strictly watch out for ?
—> when i want to use the same Gigs on GP3, aswell as on GP4

(i take it, that there might be now some inconveniences ! GP3/4 is my main app, and i love it :wink: )

4

Yes that is the root cause, because GP4 files should never be loaded in GP3

I made a test with saving wrong and open and at the end in GP4 a widget was moved, in GP3 it was not.

5

yes, thats not a hard one to imagine respectivly to understand :wink:
i was under the opinion that i reworked my GP3 file, and resaved it from GP3 again.

could be, there went something wrong. I must guess it is so !
But i´d say, its then absolutely crucial to understand here ANY details, and ANY dont´s.

Thats why i post.
I want to have full overwiev and understanding, bevore i load again a Gig into GP4 ( since its intended to use GP3 further, beside GP4 / parallel loads instead of using alternative instances)

6

Normally you should get an error when you want to save a GP4 File with GP4

7

Why using GP3 beside GP4?
I loaded several GP3 files with GP4 and except some smaller sizings I had not issues at all.

8

Yes, that? Once you have everything working properly in GP4 there’s no reason to ever use GP3 again.

1 Like
9

haha, i totally see that point,

(please see my question on the end. there is still that thing i´d like to know about. since this thread was finally meant as a question :wink: . ( letters set to “bold” )
otherwise, sorry for the workload ! But, it could also be interesting, since you can see here how different the users work and use GP)

i would have thought the same, really.
But things happen…

  1. i immediately thought, that using GP3 beside GP4 would work out for me, instead of using alternative instances (which i still have flaws with vs. that the audio settings, plus the last loaded Gig, is kept same (or not), when loading the next time).
    I HAVE a huge need to be able to load different GP instances for different use-cases, where the loaded instance would load with a different audio settings setup.
    important: This type of uses avoids, that i would kill my audio settings in my main GP apllication, which would mean:
    first: When i just want to make music, i had to load my wanted Gig (long loading times), then i had to reset all audio settings ( again: long loading times). = 3x the whole loading time, bevore i can play.
    To use GP3 as a alternative Instance for my alternative uses is just the perfect deal.
    ( this whole thing come from the fact, that GP is perfectly well suited to do other jobs, taming television/multimedia, for example, But also:
    i want to have and share the same FX presets between apllications.
    That means: instead of loading FX into Wavelab, would i run Wavelab thru GP !
    and if i create now a FX preset, do i have it available within the GP preset load context.
    this one IS something for how i work. There is alots of thinking how to orgnise all this, within ones studio work )

  2. what happened: i can go different routes with creating my Gigs in GP4.
    one use szenario here is: open both V3 and V4: and begin to transfer Gigs in GP4 into another form of organisation. Its not a thing of a few Days, more like months.
    You understand ? load a GP3 Gig in GP3, load GP4 too, begin to “rearrange” same Gig within GP4.
    ok, thats theoretical, …but might happen.

2B. i found by coisidence new ways to patch, …new things i can do.
So, for now, when i “patch” (= creating a rackspace) in GP4, i do new work, new experiments, while GP3 allows me to just load an old patch, and make Music !
no patching, no thinking, …just play.
So, having and loading both side by side, makes now alots of sense to me !
…whicle I HAVE to do new works within GP

These points do not necessarily touch my "widget resizing “issue” ", true.

  1. Then, and thats why i opened these threads:
    opening my old GIgs in GP4, with those very dense Frontracks, means:
    i can NOT just play, i first have to redo the frontrack !
    Thats a work i allways hate to do. Doing it for one Rackspace, each time loading a Gig in GP4 for playing purposes, is probably my personal capacity limit, vs. doing that “frontrack rework task”.
    and this means: i would have to use my Gigs over months within GP3 AND GP4 until i´m there.
    In fact i would from now on have to load both, side by side, whne doing this “frontrack rework task”, GP3 vs. GP4, cause it would make it more easy to see how my old frontrack was made !

as sayed: this is NOT trivial for me.
there went alots of work into my racks, and the scrumbling of my frontracks might be higher than you folks at Deskew would have thought it would be, for the users.

Thus again, my point and question of this thread:
i would like to know:
is GP4 final as is, vs. this Widget resizing “issue”,…or is no further change possible on that matter ?
( that the scrumbling effect would be smaller vs. GP3)

if i knew on this, would it mean i don´t have to wait for anything, anyway.
Yet, transfering my old Gigs, will take months anyway. (thus my other thread vs. file handling)

10

Underlying widget layout engine is significantly improved in Gig Performer 4 so it is rock-solid. It has been tested by beta users that have created many beautiful Gig and Rackspace files: Gig and Rackspace Files - Gig Performer Community

This is also listed as a “breaking change” in GP4: Gig Performer | Breaking changes in Gig Performer 4

Therefore, I recommend that you tweak the layout of your gig files a bit. You will be happy with the results long-term.

1 Like
11

This is the bad news that definitely answers my questions: I’ll have to tweak about 50 panels used in live, plus another 40 or so used for creation.
Even though I use the same panel model in 80% of my rackspaces, I haven’t found a solution to automate all or part of this work.
Any idea to lighten this work will be welcome.

12

Well, hopefully you won’t have to do it again in GP5😎

13

No comment (as Serge Gainsbourg said).

14

i was aware ! i went thru news, changelog, and some threads here, bevore i was lucky enough that PA got their GP4 out :wink:

the “Problem” that is here present, and it seems quite underrated, is:
that its not: “…a bit…”

thats the missconception here in the play, and vs. what i was asking for.

the way several of my frontracks are setup is shurely not something usual.
i use 16 faders side by side on one panel.
BUT: some of these are double-Widgets for “Crossfade” uses.
these Faders are very “thin” and very close together, and quasi looking like it was one Fader.
When i have such on the side of the panels, is it screwed up so much, that i even don´t understand what the setup of that frontpanel was !
its immense.
(edit: please see screenshot 2, the very right side.
Thats 5 Faders there in total. But you only see 2 in this scrumbled state.
on the far left, a very similar situation / the 1+213+4 panel is NOT 2 faders plus another one, its some more)

next part is: i can´t just move away the “panel-widget”,
cause the new faders in GP4 load such big sized, that its even not possible to grab my individual “panel widgets” to resize them first.
so i have to pull EVERYTHING apart on the sides.
I´d even not get to see what Faders were “double-widgets” cause these FAders are now on top of each other in some spots.
The work to do is kind of worser, or at least harder, than to create a Rack by new.
Just: you can´t do that, not beeing into the"Patch".

So things turn into a “old house” that you have to torn apart first (on the sides of the panel), then into a puzzle ( inclouding checking the widget assignments to understand what the widgets in fact did do, since all naming plates are also off), and then you begin to restore that frontpanel.
And that was then just one Rackspace.

But everybody here is posting, like it was just:
shifting some widget panels “a little bit” around.

as it shows, thats not the case for some folks with dense frontpanels.
its not: “a little bit”

thats where a big missassumption is in the play here.
and thats why it will take me monts to switch over to GP4.
…the next missassumption, that we would switch over immediately.
its even not doable for me, as it is.

i switched over to GP4, but for creating completly New Gigs.

anyway, i did not came here to tell the whole thing by new :wink:
i just wanted to answer. / But: here is really some “missassumptions” in the play.

::: … ;;;…___…:::…;;;

in personally Got it now, i´m over it !

I have now my picture together vs. how i have to proceed.
( thats what i finally tryed to achive by opening these two threads)

Thanks everybody ! and sorry for the workload !..i will work up my way from here…