The GUI honestly bugs me less and less now. Now that I’m mixing BFD3 pretty much exclusively in Pro Tools, after I route everything and tweak the kits, the plugin window stays closed for the most part. All of the little bugs that still continue to pop up is a way bigger deal to me, as that’s what stops production, not how pretty the interface looks. The sound has always been there. What is most important after that is consistent stability.
Now for someone who uses the groove editor and mixer, I can totally see how the GUI and clunkiness could be an issue and a pet peeve.
I think a good indicator of potentially how good BFD4 is going to be, is the BFD Player when it officially comes out. Even with it’s limited capabilities, if it turns out to be more stable and less finicky than BFD3, then that will be a good sign that the main issue is just BFD3 and how old it is. Trying to add modern compatibility/updates with such old code and engine must be really difficult and no wonder why when they address one thing, it creates a slew of other problems.
Once they finally get an Apple Silicon build covering AAX/VST3 and it’s usable, they just need to leave BFD3 alone and focus all their resources on BFD4, so they can release it as soon as possible. That’s the only way BFD is going to have a chance at gaining credibility again in the market. And please make it a reasonable upgrade price for those of us who have been loyal and stuck it out these past few years. I’ve done my part trying to spread the word on the good things about BFD3 during past sales and clear up any misconceptions. I’ve had to correct people a few times in other forums. That’s been tough to do with the valid criticisms of inMusic, the LM and bugs though.
Definitely agreed that soon as the AAX/VST3 versions are done that BFD3 should probably be left alone. I personally love the look and functionality of BFD3 but I feel any UI changes/tweaks/updates should be exclusive to BFD4.
Another feature I’ve been thinking about…whatever room the kits are recorded in, there should be a way to export an IR of that room for use with other instruments in your project. Say you’re using drums from El Dorado and like that room, I wanna be able to use that room on my bass track too.
…And speaking of rooms…DO SOME KITS AT NRG STUDIOS in Los Angeles!! I kinda consider that my mecca, since the first album I ever bought–Korn’s Follow the Leader–was done there.
Expanding on an earlier suggestion on cymbal packs, I’d love to see cymbals done by the collection. For instance, don’t just give us random mish-mashes, It’d be awesome to see the whole set of Paiste 602s or Zildjian As or whatever so we’re getting those super cohesive drum sounds.
I’m not sure if someone else has mentioned it, but I’d love for there to be some sort of drum replacement functionality like Trigger built into BFD4, would make my workflow so much smoother.
Sorry that I didn’t scroll over 500 replies . . . . so be kind if I my wish has already been posted.
I wish that you would update the keymapping to the existing and actual E-Drum Modules.
There has changed so much!!! You are for me the best sounding library, but as an E-Drummer I wish to plug and play with my kit!! Especially the new digital parts from Roland.
Other companies support these technologies like a VH-14 with al it’s versatile playabilities.
Cheers Ilja
The problem with implementing something like that, is the output routing is going to vary depending on the kit/expansion used. There wouldn’t be a one-size-fits-all routing preset that would cover every expansion.
It’s tedious, but I’ve been setting up custom routing to DAW for expansions I tend to use and save those as a template. I can then import that kit with the routing all set in a new session. In it’s current state, you usually have to make some compromises with BFD3 channel routing, as you have very limited mono/stereo outputs. I try and get all the direct kick mics balance how I want it and send only the summed kick channel to the DAW. That right there can save you a few mono outputs. For snares I like to route individual direct mics though because I compress the the top and bottom mics differently. Direct cymbals are another one where you can just route them all to an aux and send that summed channel to the DAW. It really comes down to your workflow and how you prefer to handle drums in the DAW, as to how you want to route things. But yea, I’m hoping BFD4 has 32 mono and 16 stereo outputs. That should be enough to get everything on it’s own output without compromise.
Currently, there are a few auto-assign output options.
Yep, just to add, unless you’re doing the same sort of thing over and over, or you’re lucky enough to be in demand for ‘your sound’, then a little pragmatism and depth of knowledge can go a LONG way.
It’s still a damn sight quicker than having to mic and trouble shoot a full kit IRL.
A related preference: some detailed tutorials. The current batch are some 9 years old and are inadequate. While I love the versatility, flexibility, and options of BFD3, it can be wickedly confusing. Probably why some prefer the ‘out-of-the-box’ competition. So a roadmap (YouTubes) of some examples of how to use, say, the Envelope or Loudness features. Is it better to do effects within BFD3 or leave them raw and just do that in the DAW? What are some routing options? With some examples? These are all things I struggle with (and I’m sure I’m not alone), which is why most users gravitate to the competition. When I can’t get the sounds I want after playing around with BFD3 for hours, I’ll sometimes just throw up my hands and just open up SSD. The complexity and versatility of BFD3(4) requires some better instruction to broaden the customer base.
If anyone wants those Groove3 tutorials, that doesn’t have access to Groove3 atm, I still have them uploaded to my DropBox. If you want the link, send me a PM. Really good tutorials for BFD3 that covers just about everything in good detail.
I’m not certain, but I think those can be automated using the Macro snapshots feature? I’m not sure if Macros show up in DAW plugins as an automate-able parameters.
I am very pleased that the plugin offers hundreds of options to control and shape the sound, but it certainly is a plugin with a steep learning curve, and I wouldn’t want it to stop being that way, because that sets it apart from the rest of the competition. However, it’s also true that for the same reason, a significant market share is missed out, which includes beginners or individuals who are more composers than producers, and they want to achieve good results with just a few clicks. I think they should consider creating pre-produced presets that are more functional for this type of user.
But not only that, I believe that while I agree with you that the inconsistency between different libraries gives a unique character to each one and prevents them from being unvarying clones like those from Toontrack (which I think sell more due to their extensive marketing), nevertheless, I would establish certain standards and review the ambient microphone capture. In my opinion, that’s where the issue lies when trying to achieve seamless integration in a mix – something that seems a bit easier with Mixwave, Superior Drummer, SSD, etc.
In summary, I wouldn’t completely abandon the BFD philosophy, but I would try to expand the spectrum in both directions – catering to a simpler audience and a more nerdy one – taking into account the aspects I mentioned that affect everyone equally. Regarding the interface, which is another aspect that’s frequently mentioned, for beginners, I would opt for something more visual like what they’ve done with the version for Alesis. However, it should allow switching between this mode and the current BFD interface, which personally, I love for its vector-based representation of the drum kit. Nevertheless, I would completely overhaul the controls, the mixer, etc. with a more minimalist, modern, clean, and elegant design. This aspect does seem to be stuck in the 2000s. But those are design matters, of course.
