Global OSC is said to be added, so I assume it's still just a matter of when.

Hopefully sooner than later, as I'm also hitting a brick wall here with the limitations of the current OSC implementation.

I totally agree.

Hopefully the good people of RME can see the value in adding the global OSC control. I believe it just might bring a whole new user group to RME devices too. For the time being, there’s really no real substitute for TMFX, and it’s so close to perfection. I hope they can still raise the bar to this final level of awesome.

It seems 'convinced' should have been 'connected' or 'affiliated'.

I understand OSCulator, and I'm using it with multiple controllers (syncing OSC+MIDI too). I have multiple OSCulator windows linked and partly synced to different submixes in TMFX. I still don’t quite understand why you assume I don’t know at all how OSCulator works and what is possible already.

Maxed out, meaning that without global OSC, more TMFX windows and controller inputs to TMFX would be needed. However, with Global OSC the current number of TMFX windows and controllers would be more than plenty, I could actually get rid of some of those and simplify my setup a lot! As I said, the problem is syncing between different submixes (and no, not total sync that you can do with mirroring submixes) and the lack of direct addresses to all faders and buttons on all submixes. (to make syncing between them possible and simple, without switching between submixes.) BTW, your example video is showing syncing faders on a single submix (+Logic Pro). This is very simple indeed, and I have no problems with that whatsoever. 

When powering up the system = When turning on my harware controllers + controller software and TMFX. Currently I do that by turning on my controllers, then disabling OSC control from TMFX settings, then turning it back on. Fader positions etc. are being sent out via OSC. Currently only the levels/positions of the visible submixes / currently selected set of faders are being sent. With global OSC I could also get fader positions to my controllers from faders not currently visible and selected in TMFX. I suggested on another related thread that if it raises the CPU usage of TMFX too much, perhaps we could have an option to enable OSC feedback per submix, or even have a table to enable only the addresses we need.

I actually have suggested a mappable button / control command to send out all the values. It’s buried somewhere on these forums. I know these forums are read by the RME staff.

That’s a bold statement that I find a bit rude too. I mean, of course I could try to dance around TMFX playing an English flute or even a triangle, but that doesn’t add the features to the core of my setup (TMFX). The shortcomings of TMFX’s OSC have been pointed out here on multiple occasions, they’ve been agreed upon, and quite frankly I don’t understand why is it you seem to insist on not having a better / more complete OSC control solution.

That might just be my interpretation of your written word, hard to hear the nuances here. But to me you sound a bit attacky to my asking for this ”promised” and quite obviously needed feature. But learning's good so cheers to that!

I basically wrote that I need global OSC, and also that I would not care to explain my whole setup here, as it would take a whole lot of time and has limited benefit for others. Point again being that global OSC would cover all my needs (and those of many others).

We’ve had enough replies from RME to very least keep the hope of global OSC alive. I’d like to believe they would have had the courtesy to say otherwise by now, if it’s not going to happen at all..

Indeed, there seems to be a del.. I mean lag. Also, you’re still simply controlling things on one submix. Not between multiple, having to swich between them to be able to sync the faders on multiple submixes.

After this long of a wait, you'd be ”crying” too.
No precise checklist needed. I believe MC knows exactly what is asked and needed, as it’s been talked here a lot. The implementation is up to RME, afterall.
Only they know how TMFX works under the hood, and how this feature can be added.

Please, any news on Global OSC support for TMFX?

I just spent more than 100 hours, again, during the last couple of weeks, trying to rebuild my controller layout for the TMFX.
It really is a pain in the ass without the global OSC support and direct addresses to all faders in all submixes.

No matter what I do and which software I use, it’s always a compromise with the current limitations of TMFX’s OSC implementation.

Now that Lemur is currently not available, I’ve switched to using TouchOSC on my iPads. It works really reliably and fast for linking faders between submixes, but for my use, it right away takes three of the four available OSC controller connections in TMFX for just one single iPad, and I would need at least four iPads + a couple of hardware controllers.
With global, direct OSC addresses I could link all the necessary faders in needed submixes with just a single OSC connection to TMFX.

I’m able to link two iPads to TMFX using direct connections between the iPads in TouchOSC. However adding more than two introduces problems, and I run out of available connections in both TouchOSC and TMFX. (TMFX is not the only app I need to be able to control).

I also had to get rid of my motor fader controller as it was using midi to OSC translation via OSCulator, and I ran out of available OSC ports in TMFX. 

(For some reason OSCulator introduces considerable amount of latency even with simple fader linkings, and is unable to keep the fader movements smooth even when running it locally on the same Mac as TMFX. (This hasn’t been the case always, but ever since I updated to Bug Sur, which was a good while ago, I haven’t been able to make OSCulator run as smoothly. An iPad running TouchOSC via wifi runs much smoother for some reason.)

Also, I would like to request a non toggle type OSC command for the Trim-mode, so that it can be forced on regardless of the current state. I remember someone else was asking for this earlier, and perhaps I did as well.
There's a midi command for this, so currently I’m using midi alongside OSC, but midi and OSC are not transmitted at the same speed, as midi takes a different route of course.

I see OSC related requests and inquiries pop up here pretty much weekly.
Some are related to global OSC and most, if not all, would at least be solvable with global OSC. So the need is there.

I’m really frustrated by the amount of time I’ve had to spend on building something that always ends up being skecthy and unreliable, and could be done reliably in a day or two with global OSC. Something RME talked about adding more than 10 years ago. This is really holding me back, as I’ve planned everything in my setup on top of RME gear and TMFX.

So please, please add global OSC soon.

I would like to express my sincere gratitude for any efforts you can contribute towards making this happen.

Ahh, maggie, long time nosy. (pun intended, with all the love)

I do know how the OSC handling works. But currently, as we don’t have global OSC and thus don’t get direct, submix independent feedback (feedback simultaneously from multiple submixes), and as some aspects of my controller layout need to be ’static’ (locked to specific submixes), I’m forced to make it this way.

Let’s just take this one part of my layout as an example. I have faders linked between 6 submixes (TouchsOSC sends out submix switch commands with the fader positions etc.), but solo states need to sync between only 3 of those submixes. I get the solo states from one TMFX window to TouchOSC. If I change the  state of a solo button, either from within TMFX or TouchOSC, my TouchOSC mappings then quickly jump through those 3 submixes and change the states in all of them.

Without locking one TMFX window / OSC controller for this, I’d have weird / wrong things happen if I (or any other player) simultaneously adjust a fader with similar kind of submix-jumping actions (or even without) in any of those submixes. Wrong solo states in wrong submixes, wrong fader positions in submixes etc.
I understand this might be doable with a single iPad and a whole lot of scripting. (I mean, I already had OSCulator layout and mappings change according to currently selected submix) However if I want to have multiple iPads and the option to adjust more than one parameter at a time from different places while also keeping the correct links between submixes, I’d need unique addresses to all faders in all submixes, otherwise things will overlap and collide.

I don’t get why this concept of direct addresses for all the faders and buttons in every submix is so hard to grasp.

I didn't say I just moved to Big Sur, but a good while ago. More than a year ago, don't remember exactly. But I’ve read of more problems with Ventura than with Big Sur. My audio works perfectly with Big Sur, so no reason to update. I’m quite sure it will not fix my OSCulator latency problems..

I'm running a 15" Macbook Pro from 2019, with 2,3Ghz 8-core Intel, 32bg of ram. Definately not the newest Mac, but should be enough for what I'm trying to do.

I didn’t. Perhaps I should do that at some point. But I tested with a simple one fader link and closed TouchOSC and other OSC-related apps. Also tried adjusting the tracking speed in OSCulator settings, but that didn’t help. I do have Ableton Live sending out all it’s clips state data and beats and bars via OSC. However, even that m4L-device wasn’t running the last time I tested my OSCulator mappings.

How is it a buzzword, if the functionality without it is not there? Can you perhaps think of a better word for it then? Or can you please explain how to adjust and get feedback from multiple submixes simultaneously with the current implementation when the fader and button addresses are not unique to each submix?

And what technical details do you think is needed for this request:

-Unique addresses for faders and buttons in each submix, so that we can adjust and get feedback from all submixes without switching between submixes and the current OSC layout.

What side effects? Surely changing the OSC addresses would mess with the current mappings, but I don’t see that as a problem. Not too much work to change them accordingly. I think it might be even possible to keep the current OSC mappings and simply add the direct addresses.

And by mentioning the platforms do you mean that it would work on all those platforms? Yes, would be good.

Best regards,

bsfreq

Personally I’d be fine without eq, dynamic, gain etc. options on global OSC. However, others might need those so I wouldn’t rule them out either..

As I’ve said before, I don’t know how much resources is needed for this, and this is exactly why I suggested on an earlier thread that perhaps there could an option to enable the global OSC / direct addresses option per submix, or even have a complete OSC address table to enable only the specific addresses (specific fader in a specific submix etc.) we need, to save CPU resources and keep the flow of data to a minimum.

I am by no means a programmer, never said I was, never going to be. So I really don’t know how any of the code works and how much work there is to implement something like this.

At the same time it was the good people of RME that said they would add this feature, and it would definitely bring a whole new set of possibilities to controlling our RME interfaces.
For me, it would mean the world of difference, and finally allow me to do all the things I have imagined and planned of doing with my RME gear.

It’s not like I’m suggesting something totally unreasonable here. RME said that it would come, so I feel confident it’s doable.

I’ve tried building my controller layouts over and over again, and I always hit the same limitations at some point. I get frustrated and come back here to remind RME of the importance and possibilities of this missing and missed feature.

Hopefully I’ve found the right balance between nagging about the lack of global OSC and praise of RME gear quality and current features.

For me, it’s ”if it works, don’t upgrade for the sake of having the newest”.
I only upgrade when it’s necessary for some new hardware or some major DAW overhaul or a feature I really need. I could of course install on a separate drive or partition, but I have a lot of paid software and licenses that I already use on two or more computers. Separate installations usually mean that I have to transfer licenses and software installation is always another pain in the ass when installing new OS’s. I try to avoid that when not necessary.

Best,

bsfreq

Cool! Thanks for the tip!

Indeed, it was behind some bug related thread, but I found it here in case someone else is interested: https://osculator.net/forum/forum/suppo … #post12043