2D support yeehaa!

[pjeudy]

I don't think the issue is whether nice interfaces can be executed in 2D. They absolutely can. The concern (at least my concern as a user, not as a developer) is that bad interfaces, when forced to conform to the 3D Reason aesthetic, at least "fit" within Reason. Going forward, bad interfaces can now be ugly AND out of place in the rack.

Whether the actually interface assets were created in 2D or 3D isn't actually the big change here for users. (It is a change for developers, but that's a separate issue.) The big change is that device interfaces no longer need to look 3D. They no longer need to match the Reason style.

Visually, Reason will no longer be a cohesive "rack." It's now just like the visual hodgepodge of every other DAW with every plug-in living in it's own visual universe, except in Reason, you're forced to stack all the plug-ins vertically, instead of having them float in separate windows like other DAWs.

For me as a developer, it's probably going to make a few things easier. But for me as a user, it's going to make using Reason a slightly less pleasurable visual experience.   
  

I understand your point of view!
What I'm thinking is that..Valhala..looks nothing like what you might expect a hardware reverb would look like, But it's such a good sounding reverb liked by many people that I think that if someone where to use it in there production the value and quality It ads would surpass any feeling of well I don't like how it looks..Maybe even some people might learn to like it ..if it delivers the lush shimmering reverb sound that one is after! Maybe ?!?

 


Not every developer wants to create devices,instrument etc..that looks like hardware...I'm all in favor of letting people express there vision...Oh sure I probably wont like the looks of some of them, but If it adds something to a sound that I feel is worth it ..then by all means create that funky looking Rack Extension 

As an example synplant doesn't look too much like a hardware device, so some might say it doesn't fit the RE style...But that was the vision of the developer...and if it delivers the good...Then to me it wouldn't matter How it looked.

[joeyluck]

I remain optimistic
I think most folks might be worried about the smaller/budding developers...?

But folks like Rob Papen might benefit from this and put it to excellent use?
Maybe u-he could cut out the cost of hiring outside 3D designers with this option and afford to revisit the format?
And folks with flat GUIs can deliver their plugins without making them feel like a completely different thing.

So there's 2 different issues here, right?

1. What about flat GUIs? Will they be made to look like they are screens on a rack device, or just windows that look like stickers applied to the rack?

2. Will 2D built GUIs that are made to look 3D be cohesive with the rest of the devices in the Reason rack? Too photo realistic? Shadow angles? Perspective?

Hopefully Propellerhead at least lays out some strong suggestions for building a RE using the 2D approach. I would think most developers would have some appreciation/geek-out factor for the virtual rack that is Reason. I have hope that most developers will do their best to adhere to that.

[hydlide]

I don't think the issue is whether nice interfaces can be executed in 2D. They absolutely can. The concern (at least my concern as a user, not as a developer) is that bad interfaces, when forced to conform to the 3D Reason aesthetic, at least "fit" within Reason. Going forward, bad interfaces can now be ugly AND out of place in the rack.

at some extend it can be a concern for the developer. Eg: if the UI doesn't work for the user, then you can UI all you want... but there will be no sale.

[wikholm]

Maybe u-he could cut out the cost of hiring outside 3D designers with this option and afford to revisit the format?

Perhaps, though I'd presume the inclusion of SSE support that also comes with RE SDK 2.2 would be of greater importance in that case.

[Pinkbox]

Just... no.

[wikholm]

Just... no.

Aww... come on. Don't be like that.

Or, well, do be like that.

Still, the ugly version has some usability advantages over the current RE, so a compromise might just cut it. Perhaps the new SDK will allow just that.

[Pinkbox]

I know I feel like a grandpa, but I really don't want to feel like I've plugged an Ipad in my rack.

Actually...I was about to say there's already really ugly REs, that has only their 3D look to save them (such as Meteora or Battle Axe...).
But I was navigating in the RE shop to find more example, and, well, Noxious and Antidote would have been a lot more bearable if they had a flat design (something like Native Instruments' Rounds).

Synchronous is a device with 3D knobs and a flat screen that contain switches..

[QVprod]

Just... no.

I'm lost as to why people think 2D support means no requirement for it to still fit rack metaphor. I seriously doubt this ^ here will ever happen. Pretty sure everything will continue to be rack devices.

The benefit of 2D support seems to be quite simply beneficial to current plugin developers. More than likely a bit less work in porting over existing plugins if they don't have to start from scratch with the GUI. The easier a port is to do = the less expensive it is to create a RE version = the more likely it is to ever happen.

.....and as far as ugly RE GUIs go Nothing will ever beat this   

[joeyluck]

Just... no.

I think as long as a hardware-style border is required/supplied as an asset for developers to use, it wouldn't be bad at all.

And keep in mind, the flat GUIs built with 2D elements made to look like a screen will actually be able to be automated, unlike the custom displays.

Something like this would be cool and acceptable to most I'm sure:
 

[joeyluck]

Would something like this be so bad?

Not that Unfiltered is looking to change their GUI, but since it was used as an example...

    
Of course, the inverting of colors is a personal preference.

But as far as flat GUIs go, I don't think it's so bad as long as they have borders to look like hardware...

[ochenk]

But as far as flat GUIs go, I don't think it's so bad as long as they have borders to look like hardware...

As I keep saying, yes, it's possible to make a flat design work in a 3D environment. We've been doing it since the RE format was released. AutoArp is a great example. The big change now is that it's no longer required. Props are not requiring 3D borders, or anything that makes flat designs work in a 3D environment. Both of your examples show how it could be done. Previously, it had to be done that way. Going forward, it's no longer a requirement. If a dev doesn't want to make it work in a 3D environment, they don't have to. 

[joeyluck]

But as far as flat GUIs go, I don't think it's so bad as long as they have borders to look like hardware...

As I keep saying, yes, it's possible to make a flat design work in a 3D environment. We've been doing it since the RE format was released. AutoArp is a great example. The big change now is that it's no longer required. Props are not requiring 3D borders, or anything that makes flat designs work in a 3D environment. Both of your examples show how it

could

be done. Previously, it 

had

to be done that way. Going forward, it's no longer a requirement. If a dev doesn't want to make it work in a 3D environment, they don't have to. 

Yeah, I understand that. We're on the same page. Which is why I'm suggesting that Propellerhead require it (or strongly suggest it). It doesn't seem like too much for them to ask. And as I was saying, since developers are required to keep widgets a certain distance from edges anyways, might as well have borders.

And if Propellerhead thinks that small request will turn any developers away, they could supply some borders as assets. Again, developers still have to meet dimension requirements, so why not kill two birds with one stone by providing them a sort of frame as a template—a template that also serves to help the flat GUI feel like it fits the Reason environment.

I also understand that this only addresses the one issue of flat GUIs and not the potential inconsistencies of 2D-built GUIs made to look 3D...

[SebAudio]

Would something like this be so bad?

Not that Unfiltered is looking to change their GUI, but since it was used as an example...

    
Of course, the inverting of colors is a personal preference.

But as far as flat GUIs go, I don't think it's so bad as long as they have borders to look like hardware...

I agree that the "flat G8" is better than the current RE. But the RE is SDK v1. They could have updated it with SDK v2 and it could have been as good and fit well in the rack.

[JiggeryPokery]

Would something like this be so bad?

Not that Unfiltered is looking to change their GUI, but since it was used as an example...

    
Of course, the inverting of colors is a personal preference.

But as far as flat GUIs go, I don't think it's so bad as long as they have borders to look like hardware...

That I think is what PH are going to allow (although I have not been following the 2.2 development too closely).

Custom displays have one MAJOR drawback compared to standard assets, and that's the lack of Ctrl-click to reset the value to default, and the lack of Alt-Click to create an automation lane. (edit: actually that's TWO major drawbacks ) . I've never understood why they can't support these, as personally I find it makes using custom displays far harder and more time consuming to use.

Would someone do a project that looks like a custom display using 2D assets, which would allow ctrl/alt click behaviour instead? Maybe it doesn't really matter much? After all, the choice is ours to buy or not buy.

[joeyluck]

Would something like this be so bad?

Not that Unfiltered is looking to change their GUI, but since it was used as an example...

    
Of course, the inverting of colors is a personal preference.

But as far as flat GUIs go, I don't think it's so bad as long as they have borders to look like hardware...

That I think is what PH are going to allow (although I have not been following the 2.2 development too closely).

Custom displays have one MAJOR drawback compared to standard assets, and that's the lack of Ctrl-click to reset the value to default, and the lack of Alt-Click to create an automation lane. (edit: actually that's TWO major drawbacks ) . I've never understood why they can't support these, as personally I find it makes using custom displays far harder and more time consuming to use.

Would someone do a project that looks like a custom display using 2D assets, which would allow ctrl/alt click behaviour instead? Maybe it doesn't really matter much? After all, the choice is ours to buy or not buy.

I hope Propellerhead does require it. But folks like Ochen are suggesting that Propellerhead won't require developers to have it look like a screen... I'm saying that since developers are required to have widgets a certain distance away from the edges anyways, might as well require borders and supply some as well. I think folks also forget that developers will still likely need to adjust the scale of their plugins to fit the rack anyways. I'd be interested to see what developer (if any) decides it would be ok to have a flat window with no border in the Reason rack...

And I agree about the custom display. I always found it weird and unReason-like that you can't Ctrl+click. In a world where REs are touted as being better integrated than other plugin formats (which they still are, but just saying...) Hopefully that is fixed, but perhaps the 2D build option will be a solution for some.

[JiggeryPokery]

   


I hope Propellerhead does require it. But folks like Ochen are suggesting that Propellerhead won't require developers to have it look like a screen... I'm saying that since developers are required to have widgets a certain distance away from the edges anyways, might as well require borders and supply some as well. I think folks also forget that developers will still likely need to adjust the scale of their plugins to fit the rack anyways. I'd be interested to see what developer (if any) decides it would be ok to have a flat window with no border in the Reason rack...

That wasn't my reading of the current proposal:  my impression was something like that G8 "custom display" look using 2D assets instead would be permitted as part of a fake "screen", as you showed above, but not allowed as Pinkbox imagined further above. There's already an example of this, of course, in B&O's AutoArp, that's a 2D display in a fake screen, not a custom display.

But I could be wrong, as I said, I've not read the spec too closely or been involved with this 2.2 testing.

[ochenk]

What I've been told is that Props are leaning towards there be no requirement to fit a non-3D interface into a context that makes it look "plausible" in a 3D environment. This statement seems pretty clear to me. Props may "suggest" plausibility, but won't require it. It also suggests that they haven't totally settled on that policy, which is the only reason that I'm talking about it. That policy bothers me, as a user, but I'm just one user. If the community is okay with it, so be it. But if the community isn't, there may be value in others expressing their opinion to Props. 

[joeyluck]

What I've been told is that Props are leaning towards there be no requirement to fit a non-3D interface into a context that makes it look "plausible" in a 3D environment. This statement seems pretty clear to me. Props may "suggest" plausibility, but won't require it. It also suggests that they haven't totally settled on that policy, which is the only reason that I'm talking about it. That policy bothers me, as a user, but I'm just one user. If the community is okay with it, so be it. But if the community isn't, there may be value in others expressing their opinion to Props. 

I think it can be assumed that the majority of the community wants REs to look like they at least somewhat fit the Reason environment. There have been some REs in the past that are 3D-built that feel out of place... But it's the thought and the effort that count.

I mentioned to Propellerhead as well, that developers will be thankful to receive a small amount of "hassle" from Propellerhead rather than the large amount of hassle and criticism from the community they will receive if their RE doesn't attempt to fit the environment.
It will be like the intro of REs all over again—where some early adopters are chased away. Best to set some simple guidelines to help avoid that.

But I'd like to imagine that any developer looking to make a rack extension will share in the enthusiasm of the virtual hardware rack. I'd like to defend some devs to say that they won't know better unless warned, but c'mon—you can't look at Reason and not get it...

[tiker01]

I'm not sure why there's any difference. Wouldn't you agree it's easy to create a 2D looking interface with 3D assets? The obvious way is to simply remove the z-axis information, but you can now also use a single custom display for the entire interface. And if the Props approve the design, then we can vote with our wallet if it's really that important to anyone here. Seems to be a non-issue to me…

I can tell you from experience that Props would not previously approve a button that had zero z-depth. 

I don't expect anything to dramatically change in the sense that we will suddenly be flooded with ugly UIs all because you can now use 2D art - again, all art submitted to the Props server IS 2D, so there's clearly no limitation being imposed with this new ability.

It's not really about ugliness for me. It's about cohesion. And I specifically noted that I'm talking about how things are "submitted to Props". It's about the requirement that they look 3D no longer being required.

The rule used to be called "90% plausibility." Props knew that there were things that a device needed to do that real-world devices couldn't do (like foldable panels) but Props required that a device look mostly plausible. Now, there's a 0% plausibility requirement. It doesn't matter at all whether the assets are 3D or 2D. It's the plausibility that's the big change for users. 

For example, UnfilteredAudio has a gate RE with this interface:

 

The VST version of that same device looks like this:

 

The RE version fits in the 3D environment. It's at least 90% plausible. The VST version looks very 2D. It's 0% plausible in the rack. But going forward, that latter interface will be allowed to live as-is in the Reason rack. The developer won't be required to add screws or make the buttons or knobs look dimensional or add rack ears, or treat the 2D elements as items within a display, or anything. It can just be as-is in the rack. 

That's the difference for me. It's not about how controls are submitted to Props or even how control are created by the developer. It's about interfaces no longer being required to "fit" within the Reason aesthetic. 

I like the second one better than the re version.
But maybe I`m mad, I think the second one so much easier to read and understand and to me easier to use.

I like the functionality and the display of the second one but I prefer the style of the first one so for me a blend would be the best.

[tiker01]

Would something like this be so bad?

Not that Unfiltered is looking to change their GUI, but since it was used as an example...

    
Of course, the inverting of colors is a personal preference.

But as far as flat GUIs go, I don't think it's so bad as long as they have borders to look like hardware...

That I think is what PH are going to allow (although I have not been following the 2.2 development too closely).

Custom displays have one MAJOR drawback compared to standard assets, and that's the lack of Ctrl-click to reset the value to default, and the lack of Alt-Click to create an automation lane. (edit: actually that's TWO major drawbacks ) . I've never understood why they can't support these, as personally I find it makes using custom displays far harder and more time consuming to use.

Would someone do a project that looks like a custom display using 2D assets, which would allow ctrl/alt click behaviour instead? Maybe it doesn't really matter much? After all, the choice is ours to buy or not buy.

Allowing ctrl/alt click is essential. It would be good if there would an easy way for DEVs to convert a custom display or certain elements of it e.g. knobs, sliders etc. to 2D display items.

[bxbrkrz]

I'm not sure why there's any difference. Wouldn't you agree it's easy to create a 2D looking interface with 3D assets? The obvious way is to simply remove the z-axis information, but you can now also use a single custom display for the entire interface. And if the Props approve the design, then we can vote with our wallet if it's really that important to anyone here. Seems to be a non-issue to me…

I can tell you from experience that Props would not previously approve a button that had zero z-depth. 

I don't expect anything to dramatically change in the sense that we will suddenly be flooded with ugly UIs all because you can now use 2D art - again, all art submitted to the Props server IS 2D, so there's clearly no limitation being imposed with this new ability.

It's not really about ugliness for me. It's about cohesion. And I specifically noted that I'm talking about how things are "submitted to Props". It's about the requirement that they look 3D no longer being required.

The rule used to be called "90% plausibility." Props knew that there were things that a device needed to do that real-world devices couldn't do (like foldable panels) but Props required that a device look mostly plausible. Now, there's a 0% plausibility requirement. It doesn't matter at all whether the assets are 3D or 2D. It's the plausibility that's the big change for users. 

For example, UnfilteredAudio has a gate RE with this interface:

 

The VST version of that same device looks like this:

 

The RE version fits in the 3D environment. It's at least 90% plausible. The VST version looks very 2D. It's 0% plausible in the rack. But going forward, that latter interface will be allowed to live as-is in the Reason rack. The developer won't be required to add screws or make the buttons or knobs look dimensional or add rack ears, or treat the 2D elements as items within a display, or anything. It can just be as-is in the rack. 

That's the difference for me. It's not about how controls are submitted to Props or even how control are created by the developer. It's about interfaces no longer being required to "fit" within the Reason aesthetic. 

I will prioritize any RE still visually coherent inside my rack. The developers are free not to work hard for my money and sell RE as if drawn by a 5 year old.

[selig]

It's not really about ugliness for me. It's about cohesion. And I specifically noted that I'm talking about how things are "submitted to Props". It's about the requirement that they look 3D no longer being required.

I'm guessing we've read the same materials, but have come to completely different conclusions. I don't recall reading anything about a "requirement" to look 3D, and I certainly don't recall that "requirement" being removed in any way. 

All I've read is that you no longer have to SUBMIT 3D "assets". This conversion seems to be getting WAY off track and including a lot of confusing and incorrect information. But please correct me if I'm wrong here…

[selig]

Just... no.

I'm lost as to why people think 2D support means no requirement for it to still fit rack metaphor. I seriously doubt this ^ here will ever happen. Pretty sure everything will continue to be rack devices.

The benefit of 2D support seems to be quite simply beneficial to current plugin developers. More than likely a bit less work in porting over existing plugins if they don't have to start from scratch with the GUI. The easier a port is to do = the less expensive it is to create a RE version = the more likely it is to ever happen.

.....and as far as ugly RE GUIs go Nothing will ever beat this 

 

100% agree with this - things are confused at best, misleading at worst in this thread IMO.

[tiker01]

Perhaps PH should provide examples that won't be accepted to the developers. Maybe they should ask the users how tolerant they should be. One can have a look to Synchronus or GQ7, Korde etc. they all have quite large "displays" but I would say they fit well in the Rack. Hopefully developers will be sensible when they design/port their GUI.

[pjeudy]

I will prioritize any RE still visually coherent inside my rack. The developers are free not to work hard for my money and sell RE as if drawn by a 5 year old.

I plan on Prioritizing any RE's that I purchase based on it's Sonic ability's,functionality. When someone shares a sound with someone else..one question you will never hear is "how did that Software device used to produced that sound looks like?" Sharing a piece of sound is the final intent of these devices...no?

I'm not all hung up on RE's has to look like Hardware.I'm more interested on great sounding flexible devices based on that developer vision.Sure I've had my opinion on RE's that I din't think looked good,but if it gets the job done then I will buy it!

This EQ look absolutely nothing like hardware
 
I had a chance to use it about a week ago..withing Minutes I fell in love with it's simplicity common sense approach.If it could come to the RE format as is then I'm all for it.
I no longer use the Mclass EQ . I haven't touched it since I bought Synapse GQ-7..AS A MATTER OF FACT I can easily have 10 instances of that EQ running I really like it...But Fabfilter pro Q is a much more flexible thus powerful EQ and The GQ-7 is the one that  looks a little more hardware then Pro Q. So if a developer feels like they need to create such a none REASON looking device to make it powerful/flexible..then by all means forget that REASON rack look! IMO!

At the end of the day I think it's an issue of design by the developer, not the fact that Props may not be putting rules in place to have RE's look like Hardware,I think lots of people  are worried about developers who are not designers creating bad 2D developed RE and 3D developed Re's.

Also people usually don't like change, I certainly didn't like the new R8 look..after using it all these months besides some silly features about R8 that I still don't like..I'm cool with how it looks now!