2014, we miss things (and I miss tons of stuff in protools which are absolutely essential today)
1994, I was already missing some stuff.
In 20 years we’ll still miss stuff… So…
PT users use PT grouping. Me too, it would be stupid not to.
Intrinsic part I agree. Should / could have been taken care, agreed.
But they are doing it, actually… You got some new grouping functions already in N6
Grouping in protools is efficient in protools. Very.
Because it does what we need to do.
The paradigm in N is different.
We have similar needs… Not a reason to make a blind copy.
Even the way tracks are handled in terms of format are different. Not a surprise that grouping functions are / will different in Nuendo. Could have come sooner, better, etc… Already agreed. Again, globally : +1.
So yes, I would probably ask for a grouping solution that allows us to do what we need to do.
Protools addresses that problem very well, so it could be interesting to have a look at how they handle thing to understand better what kind of functional solution (Nuendo style) we could be having.
That in my opinion is on topic, because asking thing to dev by saying : you were too long, copy it from someone else and get it done fast" is certainly the best way to not get it done… At all…
Like I said, I agree with you (like on other subjects) on the pro user part : we need the tool, and what you said is deeply true : we cannot buy grouping as a plugin.
So it needs to be solved. But I feel it’s on the way already.
Past that, and to be fair, I have to say that mixing on a controller (tango2) that allow some grouping static/dynamic grouping makes me less Nuendo-grouping-dependent than others, I guess
[/quote]
No way for me.
I wouldn’t trade Qlink. But I’m doing post only… Maybe in music pov is really different…
But The clone is the problem here. Nuendo is no way a clone of protools and mustn’t be.
In that case, again, why don’t you work in protools ?
Nothing is perfect, so I use both.