search

falkTX / Carla

Audio plugin host
https://kx.studio/carla
1.59k stars 147 forks source link

Carla Rack VST minimum height issue #1294

Open stevenjaycohen opened 3 years ago

stevenjaycohen commented 3 years ago

The Issue: Using Carla on a 13" laptop (Audacity pictured but happens in other applications as well). The minimum height of Carla's Rack makes it impossible to use with the laptop's native resolution (1366x768). Please note that the Controls at the bottom of the VST window (green, purple, and blue buttons) extend off the screen at native and lower resolutions.

The workaround: The workaround is to "add" a higher (unsupported) resolution when planning to use Carla.

Suggested Fix: In thinking about the Rack metaphor, shouldn't the "minimum" height of the VST window be between 1 1/2 and 2 1/2 of those generic rack plugin UIs? Right now, it looks like I could fit about 10 plugins in that window before needing to extend it. It doesn't seem to me that there would be any negative effects of allowing the VST window to be shorter. Am I missing something?

Resolution: 1536x864 (Workaround pictured as reference) 1536x864

Resolution: 1366x768 (native to laptop) 1366x768

Resolution: 1280x720 1280x720

falkTX commented 3 years ago

hmm I did not think this would be an issue. can surely decrease the size, at least for the rack version. how many pixels do you calculate to be enough?

I would guess though, many other plugin UIs have the same issue, right?

stevenjaycohen commented 3 years ago

Yep! Some developers forget about small screens :)

Here is Carla along with iZotope Nectar (a pretty big UI) at 1280x720: nectar-carla-1280x720 It looks like Nectar would still fit the controls underneath. I had the same issue with some Acon Digital plugins last year. But I don't have them installed on this laptop to send a screenshot.

Due to lack of coffee, I'm having a problem thinking in pixels at the moment. Personally, I'd love to see the minimum set to 60% of what it is now. I'm guessing that 80% of what it is now would fix it for me, but possibly not for some other low res screen.

stevenjaycohen commented 3 years ago

Is there a practical reason why the minimum height is so large (even when the rack is empty)?

Wondering if I am missing something obvious. Since reducing the minimum height seems to have no useability disadvantages, why not make the minimum as small as possible?

Why not make the minimum the height it would need to be to have 2 1/2 plugins on the rack?

The reason for the 1/2 is that would make it obvious that one might want to expand the height. Whereas, if it were a whole number (like 3) someone might add a 4th plugin and think not seeing it was a bug.

Done with a 1/2 entry on the rack, you would even avoid needing to consider a scrollbar. It would just make sense to expand the window. Isn't something like remembering the window size the responsibility of the VST Host (not the plugin)? If so, this solution would leave that part of the fix to the host, not your plugin.

falkTX commented 3 years ago

Is there a practical reason why the minimum height is so large (even when the rack is empty)?

The reason is because the size is fixed. So while it appears useless at first, after you load a couple of plugins it becomes harder to manage.

stevenjaycohen commented 3 years ago

Got it! That was why you were asking how small it NEEDED to be! understood! image With the screen at 1280x720, 7 plugins fit on the rack while leaving enough space for the controls at the bottom of the window (where the empty space on the rack appears now).

I don't think you'd ever really need to support a screen smaller than 1280x720 these days. There are still some 11"-13" laptops at that resolution. And, this would fix it for all of them.