VSTs are the last bastion of soulful UI design
Couldn't agree more
except when they put screws in them
because you dont have to make them responsive. you can add 3d shit and stuff with no worries
this looks tacky af is this some troonix shit?
>>449145Nexus 4 doesnt look as good anymore
>>448990If by "soulful" you mean "appeals to people who drool over shiny objects and cheesy sci-fi faux tech" then agreed.A bazillion tiny "knobs" operated by a mouse that requires a fader-like up/down movement to "spin" them is even worse than a real world box with a bazillion tiny knobs that only a child's fingers could access, but somehow *that* legitimately retarded skeuomorphism is cool and "soulful".
>>449148knobs take up less screen space than faders and work just as well
>>449148Have you ever experienced fun?
>>448990massive x looks fucking garbage RIP
>>448990Yes. and I also like my PC desktop to look like a literal desktop, replete with Rolodex, leather-bound planner, and a cup full of pens and pencils.
>>449151>knobs take up less screen space than faders and work just as wellWrong on both counts>less screen spaceVirtual knobs get crammed together to save visual space so that the target area to click/activate them (the functional space required to operate them) quite often overlaps with neighboring "knobs" and isn't intuitive. >work just as wellFaders have a single, intuitive method of operation in both real world and virtual forms, with clearly defined boundaries.Real world knobs do too but require adequate spacing to avoid hitting neighboring ones accidentally.Virtual knobs have a variety of methods of control; some are "grabbed" with a mouse click and "rotated", others are grabbed and then "spin" by an up/down or side-to-side motion like a fader. Its not intuitive and to further complicate things the ones that work in a linear motion often don't make any differentiation between which side of the virtual spin axis you apply force to, which removes the main aspect of real knobs that is intuitive.As mentioned above, the "grab" activation area may be inside or outside the boundary of the knob image. When it is outside and invisible its easy to "grab" the wrong knob, especially when the knobs are crowded together and/or their control areas overlap.Faders don't have those problems and can be nested right up against each other with plenty of "grab" area safely inside the image itself. They're also more intuitive visually when looking at a control panel that needs to quickly show things like relative volumes, and in a virtual setting are easier to gang up with a mouse selection and move as a group.
>>449151>knobs take up less screen space than faders
>>449551Both faders and knobs are shit. Its all about tentacles
>>449551literally less space, are you retarded?
>>450163You're trolling, right?>Johnny can't count.jpg
>>450168not that anonyou tell us
>>450186bruh32421 divided by 3 equals less than *11k pixels per knob*47892 divided by 4 equals less than *12k pixels per fader*11k<12kknobs<fadersneed help learning how math works?
>>450186here, lending you the hand I would've wanted my teachers to lend me.
>>450188Sure, if you don"t consider the space necessary to select and move either control without constant risk of inadvertantly activating neighboring controls then you can cram all sorts of shit into any given space.which is exactly the issue already discussed with dumb zoomer faggots who quack about "soul" making retro fantasy pictures of audio gear with flashy looks prioritized over functionality.Also, its cute how you left all the full borders around the fader blocks to make them as big as possible and then cropped off the borders and all control identification lettering for the knobs as if that arrangement represents any real world device...and still only managed to gain enough space for one more unmarked knob.(But not as cute as you thinking nobody would notice this dishonest misrepresentation.)As usual, the big brain doing the "designing" has no fucking clue how the real world device he's emulating actually works or why the control arrangements he's aping ( poorly) exist.
>>450206loooool. brainlet>Sure, if you don"t consider the space necessary to select and move either control without constant risk of inadvertantly activating neighboring controls then you can cram all sorts of shit into any given space.why would I have to start thinking about element size?! it is not my fucken interface lol. I didn't have to cram anything, since what anon provided just isn't an example for what they thought it was. I used the original example at the original scale that someone [probably you] gave to make a point the image doesn't even support.also. 'dishonest' kek:I just included every part that belongs to reading the controls into the borders (which includes the numbers. last time I checked scales had been relevant parts of measurements).we can play the stupid game you want us to play, delete all 'unnecessary, dishonest values' in favor of faders and still leave them in the knobs and see where we end up. AND WOULD YOU LOOK AT THAT! the exact same spot. >idiot came up with an example for the opposite case
>>450208>I just included every part that belongs to reading the controlsExcept the text identifying what the knob does, which believe it or not is an important part of a user interface.Once again, you whine likeca child about the real world demands of actually using the device in favor of cropping the graphic elements with zero regard for their functionality, so you can autistically screech about static screen space in pixels. Mongs like you ARE the problem.
>>450222lol. you serious? they both share values, but one has names. and you consider them being the feature I have to include in order to understand what "makes the knobs larger than the faders"????? LMAOokay bro. see you next timeas far as I am concerned we have been able to show that the knobs take up less screen space than the faders. which, as far as I am concerned, is the opposite to what that anon used the image as an example for.