Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. This message will be removed once you have signed in. Login to AccountCreate an Account
Learn & Play Rocksmith!
Want to play the songs you love? Registration and the use of this website is 100% free.
The only thing you need is a legal copy of Rocksmith 2014 w/ a cable. Click here to buy it.
Having trouble logging in or registering? Please click "Support" below.
Regarding the issue with the update outside of CDLC, this was not an update that was ready to be shipped to the public and was published due to internal mistake in the studio. Any major issue that came with it aren't due to a lack of QA or something they had intent to create on a released version. We are still waiting on further information from Ubisoft regarding what will happen but this update will likely be revert. The dll should still work once it's pulled back.
Thanks everyone for your understanding and patience with this issue.
*Improved the accuracy of the copy/paste logic, including a new mechanism that forces pasted notes to resnap to the correct position if the original copied note was grid snapped. This should eliminate the possibility that floating point math errors could cause grid snap loss during copy/paste operations.
One less action for me to take on copy/paste, yeah!
As for the notes panel, i could see the grid snap and current phrase/section being somewhat nice. I don't care about stats at all. Tone in effect could be interesting too as for the rest i don't have much idea that come to mind.
At the moment i really just use it as a memento from my last playthrough for the current song i'm working on but i can see how this might not be the best use of it (can we edit it in EOF directly? i haven't tried yet but it could be interesting).
@Berneer If you really prefer to not see any cut in handshape, you could just make it touch and you wouldn't see the change outside of the indicated fingering change.
Note that it can easily be argued that it makes it clearer that your handshape is changing as you do change from one chord/double stop to another though it can indeed make it seems like you shouldn't sustain the note then but imo, the HO/PO makes me automatically assume i should keep the rest of the handshape intact anyway which implies that it will ring out unless indicated otherwise.
It's really a matter of personnal opinion on how you read the chart on sight and some tab will make some cases easier to justify than others for a given display but i tend to keep my sustain to minimal and only add them when i feel it wasn't clear that the let ring was implied, that can vary a lot with the player experience and knowledge of the songs/riffs though and there's no wrong or right as long as the user can sight read it easily (which wasn't the case for Tenacious D riff that just left me wondering what the hell they were thinking).
@Alex360 but that's the thing, for creating market you need to have value to exchange, something that would make any legal issue regarding fair use even worse. The idea isn't bad in itself just hardly doable in our exact situation without being a legal nightmare.
As for anything that requires collaboration i think it's also partially due to what CDLC are, it is a tab, it's a very personnal take on a music piece, it's hard to work in cooperation with other people (even the notetrackers at Ubisoft are just one guy per song and the only thing that is done by another guy are the tones and it's the dedicated tone creator of the team).
The tones and tester thread died because it was unregulated, no rules, no oversight, no organization whatsoever and it was impossible to keep track of what's what but that's something that could probably work. Though i would find it easier if the different project of getting an actual tone database together would actually get somewhere...
As for tutorials and tools. Tutorials isn't really lacking, some could need some clarification but it's also the tools that would need a major revamp to actually become way more user friendly and that's something that takes a lot of effort and time to do, something that is always utterly lacking.
@Cyberion By PM charter that you think will be willing to do this. Note that the success of this method heavily depends on the research one will do before asking any random charter, the more info you provide, the more willing you are to help and of course finding someone that is likely to actually like the song are important factor.
1) the issue wasn't the no-one checked it (though i doubt many actually did), it's that it wasn't uptodate at all or even automated to inform anyone that a request have been completed. It was kinda like shouting at a wall and expecting an answer...
2) People are still going to make CDLC, request have nothing to do with creation. In fact it's pretty rare to have people create a CDLC based solely on request.
As for a new request feature, it's likely to happen at one point in time but there's far more important work to be done before we can dive into a new request system.
So this will literraly change nothing regarding CDLC creation, people can still ask directly charter to make a song if they wish to do so but there's just isn't a centralized place to gather people request as it was doing more harm than good.
@tincho2005 Note that our request system wasn't in any way automated and wasn't updated for months now and this had no impact on CF life. It was just a sink hole, a way to satisfy people need to post request to avoid getting request all over the forum but it never got further than this.