Wepeel

Oh, and it looks like I've confused myself. The printing functionality I was referring to adding was into the Tab Explorer app, not EoF or the Toolkit. The Tab Explorer app looks like it was built on .NET 3.5 so it would already have print functionality available.

That's correct. As long as Steam and Rocksmith are installed into the default directory (/Users/[yourusernamehere]/Library/Application Support/Steam/) then that's all you have to do. Open Steam, and then launch RSInjector. RSInjector will find Rocksmith and launch it. However, there are some steps that need to be taken first, but it looks like you've already done them if you can get RSInjector to launch. What I mean is, you have to allow third-party apps to run (Go To System Preference, Security & Privacy, "Allow Apps Downloaded From" to verify) and you have to have administrator rights on your Mac user account. Maybe also verify that you have read/write permissions for the files you are downloading. Right-click on a custom file and choose "Get Info" to have a look.

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply anything about your app or its development. I was just using it as an example because it was brought up. I meant more about adding print functionality in general, not in your specific app. My point was more along the lines of adding a built in function like printing, saving, etc would be less time consuming than adding a feature that would need to be coded from the ground up. That's all.

Weird... are those the only customs you have in the folder? You should also have the following 4 files: "cherubrock_m.psarc" "cherubrock_p.psarc" "rs1compatibilitydisc_m.psarc" "rs1compatibilitydlc_m.psarc" Any other files contained in that folder should be any other DLC you've bought, and your customs, but that's it. Also, make sure you're putting everything in the "/Users/[yourusernamehere]/Library/Application Support/Steam/SteamApps/common/Rocksmith2014/dlc" folder.

Of course it wouldn't take anything away, i never say that like this way but probably i wasn't clear enough. But like i said before i also want to see those stuff in a new version. More Techniques because there probably miss some and stuff like that. Also i never say baritone is an advanced thing, i only think about the point that probably not everyone bought a baritone because it is mostly a metal thing and as far as we see how many metal things comes out with bands that really use a baritone for most of the songs? But also u have to thing about that point. Copyrights! How many bands allowing it to use there stuff? so they also have to see what contracts can we make to get those songs in, how many of them have a baritone guitar and how many person who play this game have a baritone? They have to calculate if it is worth to add the work and money for it. BEcause if they only get let me say one DLC pack with 3 or 4 songs why they should add baritone support? That is the way i also see it. Probably they see what a community those both games have and see what guys like unleashed create, maybe they will add later some back doors so it will be possible to add those things without make any special contracts for songs and so all. If they will be smart they should do it. Because without a community a game is nothing. I think you're missing the actual issue behind using a baritone. You can play any song you want on a baritone guitar, just like you would on a normal guitar. However, the game itself doesn't recognize anything past the 22nd fret, which presents problems with songs recorded on regular guitars just the same. I believe somebody is currently having that problem right now with a Metallica song. So you wouldn't be adding anything specific to just a baritone guitar, but the ability to play higher frets altogether. I play on my baritone in RS fairly frequently, because it's easier to do drop tunings on it. There are several songs already released that make use of a baritone guitar in real life. Pat Smear of the Foo Fighters plays a baritone. So does Benjamin Burley from Breaking Benjamin. Pat Metheny, Mike Mushok, Dave Matthews, Don Ross, Brian Setzer, and the list goes on and on. Baritones are used in every genre from Jazz to Rock, to Metal. Anyway, I think we're both saying the same thing without realizing it. Your question/concern was whether or not another version of RS would be made. I think there are more than enough ways to improve on RS2014 to warrant a new version.

Thanks, I'll compile a list when I have some time. I haven't been using it too much because I became frustrated with the learning curve and some confusion as to whether the errors are/were my fault of the app's. I also stopped because the 3 out of the 4 songs I was working on were posted by @@Brooklyn_Sounds, and he's a great charter so there was no need to continue. But I will make a list of what I think are errors and we can go from there. Also, as far as print capability, that's why I added the qualifier of the app's base needs to be well done to be able to implement new features easily. And printing is a bad example to use anyway, because for the most part it's a simple addition that is already available in the framework because printing is a standard function. However, things like import/export, and anything that needs a specific process to be written would obviously be much harder. I guess the point I was trying to make is that the dollar value attached to any particular task/project would depend on the complexity of the job itself. In the real world, if somebody quoted $120 to add print functionality and I knew it could be done rather easily, I might undercut that bid and offer to do it for $80. Somebody else might offer to do it for $40, and so on. I just think it creates a sticky situation to offer a fixed amount for something, at least without qualifiers or strict expectations. Say I did do that print job, and the pay was $120. If it only takes me an hour to do it, I just got paid $120/hour for my work. Which we would all agree is very unfair. It would be up to me to make a moral decision about what to do. I've been doing this for a long time and know the value of good client relations, so I would work out something with the community (take on another job, etc). But not everybody would make the same choice. What if there's another job that someone else does that is more complicated and they get the same amount ($120) but it takes them 15 hours to do it because they ran into a problem, or didn't have as much experience as I do? Then they just got paid $8/hour for their time. Does the community donate more to give them a fair wage? I think it's best to keep it internal as well, but there needs to be formal guidelines and processes. A quote system that the community (or some sort of "board") could choose. It doesn't have to be as formal as applying for a real world job, but we all know we want real world results so there needs to be some sort of process. Trust will only get you so far before it leaves you on your ass out in the cold. It's not like we all know each other personally, or even live in the same cities/countries. I know I'm being a bit redundant, but great ideas come from good conversations.

But Rocksmith isn't (and shouldn't) just be aimed at the complete beginner. In that case, most people would move on after only playing for a few weeks. There are lots of advanced techniques and lessons available for advanced players. Adding to this would take nothing away from beginners, and would also be one of the main reasons for any kind of new release. There's a reason why Rocksmith 2014 was called that, instead of Rocksmith 2. The developers wanted to distinguish it from the original game instead of people thinking it was simply a sequel and that RS1 had to be gone through first. RS2014 is more learning based and less game-like than RS1. It has more techniques and lessons that were not featured in the original RS. The music industry and the original Rocksmith community had a huge impact on what new features were added to RS2014. Of course things needed to be left out, because all software companies work on a rigid development cycle and budget. There wasn't enough time or money to add everything that was wanted. If demand is high enough, anything is possible. And playing baritone guitar isn't necessarily an advanced thing. Playing baritone is almost identical to playing a standard guitar, except the tuning is B to b, instead of E to e. You can play songs in the exact same manner as on a regular guitar, they just have a deeper, darker tone to them. But, the game doesn't support the full scale of a baritone, as it has a 27" scale instead of either 24/24.75/25.25" like standard guitars.

If thought of in terms as pay, it may seem unfair. but as you mentioned, it's more about motivation and less about paying for the actual development.. This community is far from being able to fund all the work the developers do and I wouldn't exclude any existing tools from it either. for instance, if we want better screen format for EoF, that could be a project and funding and EoF developers can get that money. Also conversely, If the Rocksmith Toolkit Developers want to implement a cool new feature. but it's going to take them 300 hours or they need to license some software to do it.. they could post the project here and solicit finding for it. The spirit of the idea is that we're just trying to facilitate the community supporting progress, help with motivating work the community feels is needed, and as a result, developers may get free pizza for a week out of it. I agree with your sentiment, just not the idea of it being informal. Informality leaves too much room for abuse. To use your example, it should not cost $120 to implement a print function into an app. For those of us professional developers, it's more like a $30 fix (30 minutes of work, likely less if the base of the app is done well). Also, if a developer accepts $100 to complete a project, that project should be completed to the standards expected. That's the agreement made when the dev accepts the job. Otherwise, what's stopping people from volunteering as devs, taking money to finish a project, spending 2 hours actually working on it before giving up, and then posting a message 3 weeks later that "funding ran out", or "it was too hard"? What happens when a project is allocated $500 for completion, but the work only takes a few hours to complete? Do I keep all the money as my expenses? The difficulty of any project will be dependant on the skills of the dev(s) working on it. What you find hard I might find easy to accomplish, someone else might find difficult. And vice versa. It all depends on where your skills are based. That's why transparency and honesty are key.

Well, rocksmith 2014 was released in 2013, so maybe 2015, maybe.... You are correct, but it was released under the 2014 game cycle (just like 2014 model cars were released in 2013). My point was it's a 2 year cycle. But yes, late Oct. 2015 would be a likely release time, to be specific.

Game developers usually work on a 2 year cycle for these types of games (Rocksmith 2012, 2014 for example) so it will likely be 2016 before we see another one. There's always areas to improve in any game, so as long as sales support another version, I think we will see one. There are features and components that are missing or need improving in the current version that could warrant a Rocksmith 2016. For instance, does RS2014 support the complete scale of a baritone guitar? I believe the game has problems once you go above the 22nd fret. And full support for 7,8, and 12 string guitars would be a nice addition. The guitarcade games could use some work to make them a little less childish as well. No offense to the younger crowd, but Return to Castle Chord Gate (or whatever it's called) and Scale Warriors, as well as some of the other games, are a little too cheesy to hold my interest. However, the fundamentals they teach are very important to learning how to play properly. Some of the other teaching components need to be refined as well. Rocksmith is great at recognizing missed notes, and telling you about how to perform skills (slides, etc), but it's not very good at helping you make adjustments while perfecting those skills. It also doesn't differentiate between hitting notes in a song, and actually getting the groove of a song right. Anyway, I think there will always be a market for learning tools on gaming systems, as it allows people to get comfortable learning something without worrying about being embarrassed, or being judged by a teacher, etc. It's also cheaper in the long run, in most cases.

Refunds would be time consuming, I agree. And I would figure most people would likely be okay to forward the money along to something else, just as long as they are given a choice. My thought line was based more along my own personal feelings, because as a Mac user being in the minority, I wouldn't appreciate my donations being used towards something that would not be supported on Mac. I would then be paying for something I could not use. It would be unfair to expect me to purchase Windows, Crossover, or any other software to be able to run something I donated towards (unless of course, transparency and the intentions of the dev are made crystal clear before I choose to donate). And yes, the EoF and Toolkit devs have received no money for their efforts, but often times, that is the burden of being the ones who pioneer a process. As you may or may not know, there was once a time (and it still happens today to a smaller degree) where musicians had to "pay to play". They paid the club/bar/etc owners in order to be able to play there, not the other way around. Anyway, if a fully-functional Mac version of the Toolkit and EoF were released, that had good/decent support, I would gladly pay a reasonable amount to use it. I think a shareware model where you could create a certain number of customs (say 5 for example) and/or convert a certain number (which is the only thing I can do right now on Mac) before having to pay would be a reasonable trial length. After that, I would pay +/- $20 to have it unlocked. I would pay more if it was fully functional on Mac. Paying for the toolkit can bring legal troubles of course, based on the nature of the software (adding an music track to a tab file and then sharing it), but there are ways around that. For instance, customs could be created without the audio file attached, which would allow them to be shared and used with no worries about copyright infringement or piracy. The charter would just list the album and song version used. Users who download those customs could then repack them on their own computer under the assumption that they are using a music track that they legally own. Any copyright infringement or piracy would then be on those users. It's not a fully fleshed-out idea, but you get the gist...

Yeah, the "missions" aren't that specific. Most of the song related ones work on customs or official tracks. And they work in Learn A Song mode too. For the most part, the missions are either playing around with different parts of the game (Score Attack as mentioned, the Guitarcade games, the Tone Designer) and the rest are pretty lame things like "Score XX% on Song X", with Song X usually being something you've already been playing (so custom or official, it doesn't matter). After a while, the missions usually degrade to being simply "Play X new songs". Oh, and get ready to be told to "Check out the Chord Book" a billion times. I get that message every time I complete a mission. Also, if you want some custom inlays and you're a PC user, there's a thread for that here. Looks interesting, but I'm a Mac user so it won't work for me.

Do you have Steam open before running RSInjector? And did you make sure you downloaded the Mac versions of the cDLC? Mac versions end in "_m.psarc" (so "Black Keys - 10-AM-Automatic_v1_DD_m.psarc" for example). The PC versions won't work. If you downloaded PC cDLC stuff and the charter did not upload a Mac version (@@Brooklyn_Sounds usually does though, he's a good charter) then you can use the RS Toolkit to convert them to a Mac version. If you need help with that, there are tutorials or I can describe the steps for you.

The important thing to keep in mind is what allegedly happened over at SA. There are no true hard facts to support the claims (yet) but from what I've read and seen it seems that a ton of money was donated to go towards hosting/development fees and that the massive amounts of overage was stolen and the person disappeared. For there to be trust, there needs to be full transparency. Even with the current donations. Receipts need to be posted to prove the amounts needed and paid for. There should be a list where all users, donators or not, can see the total amount of money donated and the total amounts spent/remaining. For dev projects, logs need to be kept (just like any professional would do) to show the amount of time spent on the project. Hourly wages should be agreed upon by those who donate towards a project or by the community as a whole. Money donated towards projects should be allocated to those projects, and nothing else. If the money needs to be reallocated, all the donators for that project should be given a choice to either receive a refund or put that money towards something else. There is no reason to take money that was donated for a specific purpose and when that project is cancelled take that money and use it for whatever the devs/mods want. That's how people get into sticky situations.

I would disagree with you about the tabs. I obviously can't give an exact number, but a very large number of customs posted here use tabs taken from Ultimate-Guitar.com and other online sources, and are used exactly as they are posted on those sites. And to say that they never align with the tabs in the game is incorrect, so long as you use the same tab source. Most people find whatever Guitar Pro tab is uploaded, and use that because it's easy to import them into EoF. I know there are charters here who make changes to tabs and in that regard they are not the same, but in a lot of cases they are just taken from the internet and uploaded as-is. I don't know the exact reason why the current Tab Explorer project died, but reading through a few of the comments it seemed like users lost interest because it was either redundant for them, or was too hard to compile, install, and use without running into problems. I do think it's an interesting idea though, and you're right, to be able to see the tabs exactly as they are in the game would help with songs that are mash-ups of the lead/rhythm tracks, etc. Anyway, I don't want to go back and forth about tabs since that isn't what the thread is about. I just wanted to chime in with my opinion about your kickstarter idea. So to continue with that, if I were to donate to a project I would require/desire continuing support for something I paid for. If the fundraiser declares that no future support will be offered at the start of the fundraising, I'm not likely to donate. What if, like I stated above, that I'm donating towards a Mac version that never gets finished? If I were to get a full refund of my donation, that would be an acceptable outcome, but where do the devs of that project draw the line as far as refunds go? Also, the number of Mac users here is very small, which means that Mac users would likely have to donate a much larger amount in order to receive any attention. Using the currently available tools as an example, the Mac versions of EoF and the Toolkit are riddled with problems and a lack of features that are available in the PC version. This is not a slight against the developer(s) in any way, and in fact they have admitted that there isn't much Dev support for Mac software and that the Mac versions don't get updated as often as the PC ones. If I were to donate to a project and that was the end result, I might feel ripped off. I would at least not likely be happy. I think it would just be better to create the apps, and then ask for payment/donations afterwards. A lot of shareware/freeware apps run under this model.

Not a bad idea in theory, but I can see it getting pretty messy. What if users donate towards a project, and that project never gets finished? Or gets finished in a way that is unacceptable to the people who donated? What if people donate towards a project but the final product doesn't have the features that they wanted? I'm a Mac user for instance, so does that mean if I donate I get a guaranteed Mac version of the project? Likely not since developing for Mac and PC are very different. Do PC user's donations go towards a Mac version they will never use? Furthermore, what if the amount of money donated exceeds the value of the project. For instance, what if $1,000 is raised to do something that doesn't require $1000 worth of work? Do people get refunds? You could forward that money on to another project, but then what if it's something that those users didn't want to donate to? Also, for your specific example of the tab explorer... Most of the tabs are taken from the internet anyway. Very few customs are tabbed by the people who actually chart them. And there are already dozens of tab apps available (Guitar Pro being the best in my opinion) that are available in both free and paid versions.

That sounds like a buffer problem, not a problem within Rocksmith. Try changing the settings for your usb input, if you can. To remove the delay, you need to reduce the buffer. There's also a latency option within Rocksmith that you can try to change if you can't change the buffer on your usb input. It's a bit of a pain though because it relies on you visually timing everything to be in sync. Also make sure that your computer meets or exceeds the minimum system requirements for Rocksmith. If it doesn't, you'll never get a perfectly smooth gaming experience no matter how many of the visuals you turn off. If it only just meets the requirements, it's a good idea to close down as many apps and processes as you can before running the game. That way all of your computer's resources will be available for RS. Thanks, It's the sound of the guitar that lags. Doesn't the latency just change the backing track to the notes on the screen?? Although I could be wrong. It hasn't mattered much because my guitar sound comes out of the amp. It's only two player when I've been noticing it. Nope, you are indeed correct. However, if the guitar delay is very small you can sometimes get things lined up with the in-game latency option. Your best bet for a solution will be changing the buffer on your usb input.

That sounds like a buffer problem, not a problem within Rocksmith. Try changing the settings for your usb input, if you can. To remove the delay, you need to reduce the buffer. There's also a latency option within Rocksmith that you can try to change if you can't change the buffer on your usb input. It's a bit of a pain though because it relies on you visually timing everything to be in sync. Also make sure that your computer meets or exceeds the minimum system requirements for Rocksmith. If it doesn't, you'll never get a perfectly smooth gaming experience no matter how many of the visuals you turn off. If it only just meets the requirements, it's a good idea to close down as many apps and processes as you can before running the game. That way all of your computer's resources will be available for RS.

Is your PC version of Rocksmith legit? Because the "no output device" is usually only a problem with pirated versions (which we aren't allowed to discuss here). If it is legit, check your settings for your input devices. If you have more than one, Rocksmith may be trying to use one that isn't active or plugged in. For instance, it could be looking for the guitar input on your soundcard instead of the usb.

LOL... Sorry I tried to help. Not sure how my suggestion of using the realtone cable with a standard 1/4" extender isn't a relevant solution, since it works perfectly fine.... But hey, I'll just stay out of it... Good luck to you. Some examples: http://www.rapcohorizon.com/p-52-extension-guitar-cable.aspx http://www.amazon.co.uk/6-35MM-6-3MM-GUITAR-EXTENSION-CABLE/dp/B0058NCHXW http://www.amazon.co.uk/6-35mm-Inch-Mono-Socket-Coupler/dp/B0039ZGUHK/ref=pd_cp_MI_0/280-8623867-0759940

My advice is just as constructive. You're the one who seemed to want to argue. If it seemed like I was arguing, I apologize. My point was, for the $75 he would end up spending on your solution, there are a lot of better and more elegant solutions out there. And I have done some research. The reason why I said I wouldn't recommend it is because I've owned a UCG102. It was crap, and not worth the hassle. My iRig HD beats it every day. Not only does it connect to my Mac/PC, but it also connects to my iPhone and my iPad. And my PS3. And it was built specifically to work with Amplitube and Guitar Rig. But I was recommending a cheap alternative, instead of an $80+ one. Hence the extension cable. Anyway, in the end, the OP can go whatever route they choose.

And that's great for you. But not everybody wants to fiddle around with drivers and settings to get something simple to work. Especially after spending $60 for the adapter, and another $15 for a cable. And no, the UCG102 is not a first class solution. There's a reason why it barely sells and gets an average 3.5 star review. Most music shops don't even carry it.

If he's using it to extend the cable to reach his PC, what's the point of tacking it down somewhere? Is he going to tack it to the floor? Or tack it to his desk, which would negate the need for the UCG102? Yes, it's a working solution. But it's overkill for what the OP wants.

I wouldn't recommend it. For one, it's ugly, big, and heavy for what it does. I wouldn't want to be dragging that around attached to my guitar. Secondly, it's about $60 Canadian (+/- $63 US), which is pretty expensive. It also gets pretty horrible reviews. It causes a lot of latency problems, and PC driver support isn't very good. On top of that, you still need a standard patch cable anyway... So why not just spend $15 on a cable extender?

No need to be sorry, I'm glad you got it working. It's a very easy thing to miss, as there isn't much detailed information posted for Mac users.