Feedback wanted: Application or Composition mapping?

[Joris]

Hi everyone!

We're working on making the mapping modes in Avenue more user-friendly. And for this we need user-feedback! So which mapping mode do you use the most, composition mapping or application mapping? You can use the poll to let us know, but of course we're especially interested in hearing about the why as well! So feel free to take a few minutes to type up your thoughts and experiences....

Thanks!

Joris and the rest of the ResTeam

[dbassix]

Hi,

i would like to have a separate mapping file for dmx and midi mapping, for example in xml. With this all options are given. You can map your DMX Channels or Midi Notes and then just save this as a separate files, which you can load in any composition. Saving different mappings for different compositions is some weird, cause you always have to remember your channels for each composition. Especially DMX Channels should always be the same.

Just some off-Topic: Any way to get an RGB Mixer implemented for each channel, without using an effect for this? For now, there are only the RGB switches, but sliders would be more handy.

Thanx
Andy

[mfo]

Uh, i misclicked, wanted to click "both", but clicked "composition" instead .. Joris, can you change that please?! Sorry..

I use and like both! Depending on room situations I have compositions with more or less layers and more or less global effects. Hencefor I need composition mapping. For features like bpm/tap, cue points, beatloopr.. I use application mapping instead.

But I aggree that understanding the two mapping types took quite a while. Although it's not a complicated thing. Maybe its just a question of better names??!

[HerrNieDa]

i miss some "functionallity" from resolume2, like next/previous frame from a clip
next would be a saving option for different setups like we had in r2 (now i have to backup my xml file, right?)

also a mapping chart like in resolume2 beside the direct mapping also would be usefull for a better overview.

[Joris]

Uh, i misclicked, wanted to click "both", but clicked "composition" instead .. Joris, can you change that please?! Sorry..

Hmmm. I tried but apparently even admins can't change a vote after it's been cast. Don't worry, it's not as if one or the other is going to disappear based on the outcome of the vote. Your post helps us a lot more in fact!

next would be a saving option for different setups like we had in r2 (now i have to backup my xml file, right?)

Thanks for the feedback and suggestions. FYI, you can save and load different Application maps via the Midi tab of the Preferences.

[Tschoepler]

I use and like both! Depending on room situations I have compositions with more or less layers and more or less global effects. Hencefor I need composition mapping. For features like bpm/tap, cue points, beatloopr.. I use application mapping instead.

I use both for almost the same reasons. But I tend to choose App-Mapping over Comp-Mapping. Since I use Avenue in combination with an OHM64 I usually don't change much on the button matrix and the faders but on the knobs. Maybe this changes once I get MON+OHM implemented in my OHM2Resolume Patch. Oh and +1 for the mapping chart. Although opening the mapping.xml and search through it isn't to hard

[Joris]

So to follow up on this, with a whopping 19 votes, the majority seems to use both. The primary thing you like about the composition mode is that it gets saved with the composition.

Nobody seems to have mentioned the fact that the Application map is contextual.

Taking the playhead as an example, you can map the playhead of a particular clip, trigger a different clip, and then that same shortcut will control the playhead of the new active clip (even though you originally mapped it to a different clip).

In Composition map the same setup would only control the playhead of the clip you originally mapped, regardless of which clip is active.

Which of these functionalities do you use the most?

[ridiculoid]

For me, Composition mapping applies most when I have worked closely with the person doing the audio. So, I have a composition that has a definite structure I have built up and added to over time. I know I'll play to the audio in a particular way, where certain things need to happen at certain times, and so the mapping is pretty carefully worked out and particular to that composition/clip.

Application mapping is used more where I have no pre-determined structure. The contextual mapping works great here, instead of lots of carefully composed decks/mapping I have just one deck with clips being switched in/out constantly, and there's a single level of control (for example, shortcuts flowing through to the new active clip, as described in the previous post).

So, short answer: Composition mapping where more precise control required, Application mapping when it's more of a jam.

Having said that, I've started using OSC via a Processing sketch and find that has made both mapping options pretty much redundant.