A few questions about the Fret Hand Positions command:

 

1) I keep getting these weird things -- like notes being changed when I KNOW I'd already checked them for accuracy.

 

Now I'm thinking this has something to do with the fret hand positions -- maybe I just don't understand all the warning prompts when I'm trying to save (more on saving later).

 

I don't remember the exact dialogue, but when the fret position warning pops it gives me an either/or question  (something about regenerating fret positions or adjusting notes) with a Yes/No response (which is part of my confusion, causes a logical brainfart).

 

Does this mean EOF reset the notes according to the fret hand position?

 

I sure hope not. But it seems that way. To me, the notes should have primacy over everything.

 

2) I'd been allowing EOF to set the fret hand positions, but now I think that's wrong -- is this something I should have been doing myself all along? That is, as I set down the notes, I should give the fret hand position right away?  (I realize most people are just importing GPro files, but there are a couple of people using EOF to chart directly)

 

3) How do you give the Fret Hand Position for a slide?

 

For example, when I have a note that starts on the 7th fret (Fret Hand Position at 6th fret) and it slides up to the 9th fret (into FHP 8th fret) should I mark the new fret position at the END of the slide? Or in the middle of the slide?

 

4) Most of the time when I'm saving, I'm really only looking for a 'quick save'. I just don't want to lose the date I've been imputting -- I'm not worried about fret hand positions, chord fingering, writing lyrics to midi, etc etc. To me that should be part of a separate process - like finalizing the track for the .xml.

 

Maybe the first prompt should be something like "Finalize track for XML?" and if the user chooses no, the save just affects the notes/changes made since the last save. Would it be possible to implement something like this?

 

Choosing 'yes' initiates the rest of the process -- checking for fret hand positioning, chord fingering, etc.

 

 

The fret hand positions is the last thing you have to apply. If you input a fingering for a chord,  the hand position will adjust . There´s also the auto fingering for EOF  know chords. But you always can change  the fingering or not input any data. When you input all fingering, then and only then you can auto create the fret hand positions or do it manually but IMMO the auto mode works very well.

 

The fret hand positions for a slide is equal to a normal chord. There will be position for beginning and other for the end. The tale which  join the two will be created automatically if you add the sustain for the first note.

So every time I save, when the program prompts me to set the fret hand positions, I should just say no?

 

Because, yeah, when I went back over the rhythm track, there were a bunch of fret positions left behind from an earlier version of the track that had nothing to do with the new version. Once I cleared those, I was able to save -- which brought up a new WARNING prompt, this time telling me the fret hand positions hadn't been set for lower difficulty levels (I'd charted it in level 4 -- maybe that's a mistake?). When I said yes to its offer to generate those, I think I FINALLY made EOF happy.

 

I'd be interested if an experience user would post their process of how they work with EOF from scratch.

As Capk suggests, It's best to not worry about permanently adding fret hand positions until the end of the authoring process, because the appropriate set of hand positions can change depending on what gets added to the chart. EOF just warns that they aren't manually defined as a way to let the author know. The automated fret hand positions should generally be pretty well usable, but if the author wants more control over the highlighted lanes and perhaps even the camera itself, he/she can either manually place fret hand positions or have EOF auto-generate the positions and edit those.

 

I worry about omitting warnings unless a "Finalize" property is set on the project, because that's another thing somebody could forget to change.

Well, now that I understand what the messages mean, sure, I know to pick 'no'. Maybe it'd be more helpful just to have a popup note informing us about the issue -- and an okay button to clear the message and continue saving? That way we'd have a reminder to do this, without making the mistake of clicking 'yes.'

There may not be an elegant way for EOF to display a short-duration popup message warning about missing fret hand positions or chord fingering. To ensure it didn't get in the user's way I'd have to have the warning display somewhere out of the way like a message window that replaced the Info Panel or the 3D preview. It would be much easier for me to make a user preference to suppress the prompts about missing positions/fingering though, would that be worthwhile?

Thanks raynebc, It´s supposed that you are experience user ,, :mrgreen:

 

@ , when you asking for help and someone offers you what he can , try to be a little more friendly. .. your avatar unsettles me.

Thanks raynebc, It´s supposed that you are experience user ,, :mrgreen:

 

@ , when you asking for help and someone offers you what he can , try to be a little more friendly. .. your avatar unsettles me.

 

Sorry, I didn't think I was being unfriendly. I certainly don't intend to be. I think there's a language barrier -- and I think this is the source of my difficulties with EOF.

 

Now that I understand how EOF handles fret positions, it makes more sense... that is, I finally realized that what EOF was really doing was checking the chart for errors and warning me about them.

 

I didn't like the yes/no answer in the dialogue because it appears to be offering TWO different choices (the "or" in the sentence). It really should just read -- "EOF spotted errors in the fret hand positions. Do you want to correct them now?"  The choice could then be "Yes" or "No" (or "Later").

 

Saying "Yes" would then initialize the process, taking the user through each error -- perhaps EOF could even generate a list that the user could click on to get to them quickly. All of the errors I had were of the "notes outside the fret hand position" type, but it would be even nicer if EOF gave a quick reason for the error.

 

Clicking Later or No would continue saving the chart data. The next time the user saves, the dialogue can pop up again.

 

Anyway, this makes sense to me, but I realize it's not necessarily possible to implement -- and that raynebc and his partner don't have the time to address these.

 

A better user guide - one designed for us Rocksmith users will help a lot.

There may not be an elegant way for EOF to display a short-duration popup message warning about missing fret hand positions or chord fingering. To ensure it didn't get in the user's way I'd have to have the warning display somewhere out of the way like a message window that replaced the Info Panel or the 3D preview. It would be much easier for me to make a user preference to suppress the prompts about missing positions/fingering though, would that be worthwhile?

the problems at first are not knowing how to react to every extra popup esp while you'd like to save increments for eg after baby steps of progress in case User error while learning to chart in EoF ...

I didn't like the yes/no answer in the dialogue because it appears to be offering TWO different choices (the "or" in the sentence). It really should just read -- "EOF spotted errors in the fret hand positions. Do you want to correct them now?"  The choice could then be "Yes" or "No" (or "Later").

The fret hand position check (it comes up if you tell EOF to cancel the save and review the position errors it found) is meant to just display each error found, and suggest a solution, it doesn't actually fix them. The prompt you are describing:

Warning: At least one note is lower than the highlighted range of the fretboard.Correct this by setting the fret hand position at or before this note,or by deleting/regenerating the fret hand positions. Continue?Yes No

isn't clear that this is the suggestion for how you manually fix it yourself, I see it would be better for me to change the wording to "You should correct this by...".

the problems at first are not knowing how to react to every extra popup esp while you'd like to save increments for eg after baby steps of progress in case User error while learning to chart in EoF ...

I can understand that, there's a fine line between not enough and too many user prompts. I think messages that say there is a problem and offer to follow up with automated corrections or a manual review process is the best balance. If you guys would like an option to suppress some of the warnings that are normally given during EVERY save, let me know.

One more thing about Fret Hand Positions:

They should not disappear after importing from GuitarPro.

This is very annoying, limiting step backwards.

Auto generate is not good enough, but is good start.

Manual adding takes too long to repeat it once again.

 

My best solution might be:

Adding a boolean attribute for each hand position: eg addedByUser.

If value is true it stays after GP import.

The way the GP import works, the imported track completely replaces the active track. I'm not sure why somebody would author fret hand positions before importing or authoring the tablature for the arrangement, is there a reason you prefer to do so? Also, if you have any suggestions for improving automated fret hand positions, let me know. There are limits to what can be done, but a lot of it comes down to user preference more than anything else and EOF may already have ways to accommodate that (ie. changing the fingering defined for particular chords).

I use the import function very often when modifying notes.

Most of the changes I make in GuitarPro and then doing re-import.

Sometimes I have to import after setting the hand positions,

then there is this problem.

OK. I know how to do it. Workaround:

Just copy fret postions to another level of difficulty and then copy back after import. Simple :) Thanks.

You could also import the GP file into another track or instance of EOF and then copy/paste those notes into the track that has the fret hand positions defined (after clearing the existing notes out).

@QOTSANINSOADKORN  The new Quicksave function (in the File menu) lets you save your inputting data without all the popup messages. I do a full save only at the end of session, but while I work, it's quick save all the way.

I have some problem with fret positions.

Autogenerate EOF did job, there is screen:

http://i.imgur.com/69H1ZX0.jpgI suspected fret position stack fix after this place:

http://i.imgur.com/G3eJ0m6.jpg

After this place i see full fretboard very long time (to end song).

http://i.imgur.com/I06siJl.jpg

 

I`m tried setup index fingers for notes, and autogenerate new fret hands positions and nope changes in RS.

Tried setup fret hand position in Eof via Shift+F, and nope changes in RS, long time before and after 17 fret i see full fret board.

There is link to xml file ->>> Link

What wrong?

 

UPD. Found one solution, if add DDC, so positions  is moving.

DDC would have added more phrases, which is probably how it resolved the problem. My understanding is that Rocksmith will zoom in/out to fit the next one or more phrases' worth of fret hand positions (any fret numbers they activate) on screen.

Professional musicians often say the first thing to learn before playing a track are hand positions, be it on piano or other instruments.

In RS14, we can't have a global overview, and we meet FHP changes while playing.

Fret Hand Positions are underdeveloped in our customs, and more often are they confusing then helping while playing.

 

i.e.

1. If several beats ahead a note is played on the Fret 10, FHP is set on 10 much too early, 

    suggesting a lot of notes to be played by pinky, i.e. full bends on Fret 13, or barré's, which is not common.

 

2. A slide with a finger obviously changes the FHP, but this is not taken into account.

    If I slide with the  2nd Finger from Fret 11 up to 13, the new FHP should start at 12, instead of remaining on 10.

    Same for sliding down

 

3. A pull down from Fret 10 to 8 should obviously set FHP to 8, but quite often it doesn't.

 

4. If only a single note is higher or lower than the current FHP, FHP is automatically changed.

    In reality, we simple extend our index or pinky out of the FHP, for an instant for such single notes.

 

Manually entered FHP are overwritten by the automated process.

I would prefer the automated process to ask if it should erase manually FHP.

Or even keep them.

 

As I said before, the only way to prevent the automated process to delete manual FHP

is to define ghost notes with a fingering of 1.

 

It would be preferable to extent this to all fingers.

Meaning if for a pull down from 10 to 8, I set Fret 10 to Finger 3, 

FHP should automatically set FHP starting on 8.

 

Improving some aspects of the automated process of FHP maybe complex, (point 4.)

I hope I have pointed out some major flaws,

to trigger a step by step improvement on points 1-3

Manually entered FHP are overwritten by the automated process.

That's not what EOF is programmed to do. It won't automatically generate FHPs for a track difficulty unless they are missing. I would rather focus on this part of your post before the suggested improvements because fixing existing code is overall more critical than adding new code. So if you have exact steps to reproduce this, let me know.

I think there should be a "generate fret hand positions for all tracks and all difficulties" option. That way I don't have to switch to all my tracks and tell it to generate hand positions.

I have the impression most charters generate FHP, and that's it.

For Rhythm parts with chords, the result is often alright.

but seldom for lead part with many scales with slides.

 

Doing FHP manually is very time consuming, with 937 notes i.e in the Patrolman, where I found all the issues mentioned above.

Should it really be disturbing, we add/change a manual FHP.

That's the way I do it.

 

For a time I stopped bothering about FHP, because more then once, I erased my own manual FHP,

by allowing EOF the generate them, because there is no difference made between generated and manual FHP.

Now I manage to protect myself, by setting a finger 1 to ghost notes.

 

Maybe you could examine to give manual FHP another internal status, and then ask, if they should be kept when regenerating?

 

I'll post some issues here soon, thanks

I think there should be a "generate fret hand positions for all tracks and all difficulties" option. That way I don't have to switch to all my tracks and tell it to generate hand positions.

 

I like that, but you take the risk of erasing FHP set/corrected manually.

I think there should be a "generate fret hand positions for all tracks and all difficulties" option. That way I don't have to switch to all my tracks and tell it to generate hand positions.

If you're not planning on editing the FHPs manually you can just let EOF auto-generate them during save. You'd get the same result, just with the warning message about no FHPs being defined already. Like TomSawyer2112 says, this kind of function could also be very destructive.

 

For a time I stopped bothering about FHP, because more then once, I erased my own manual FHP,

by allowing EOF the generate them

That would never be an automatic process. This would only happen if you asked EOF to replace the FHPs in the track difficulty with generated ones. If this is what you're referring to in your previous post instead of EOF replacing FHPs unexpectedly, let me know.

 

Maybe you could examine to give manual FHP another internal status, and then ask, if they should be kept when regenerating?

Adding automated FHPs among manual ones isn't the way it's intended to work. Making a second type of FHP just to differentiate automated ones would be far too complicated of a process. Anybody wanting fine control over them should be editing the automated ones after finishing all tablature edits, or adding them from scratch.

 

For a time I stopped bothering about FHP, because more then once, I erased my own manual FHP,

by allowing EOF the generate them

 

That would never be an automatic process. This would only happen if you asked EOF to replace the FHPs in the track difficulty with generated ones. If this is what you're referring to in your previous post instead of EOF replacing FHPs unexpectedly, let me know.

 

 

Yes, sometimes when saving, EOF asks to correct FHP, and not always understanding what's wrong, I did execute the generate process. So yes, this is not a fully automated process.

I always generate then add/modify FHP over the one generated, this way can be really fast since many part are already quite correctly done with the automated generation. I don't really understand your issue their since i have never had any kind of problem by doing it the way i did so far.