I’m not saying it’s easy at all. I’m saying a redesign might be easier than trying to shoe-horn the old version into features it was never designed for in a unit that may not be capable hardware wise.
It’s probably not a popular idea, and I hope I’m wrong.
Glad to hear they are after 3 years finally going to come through with the Desktop editor…
To be clear, I wasn’t trying to disparage anyone with my comment and apologies of it came across that way to anyone. I was just adding my two cents worth of support behind the very well stated and educated post. From my own experience, he’s walked the walk and can talk the talk.
What makes you believe the QC wasn’t “designed” for a desktop editor? Or any software for that matter? It’s just a computer running code at its most basic level.
I would argue that a complete rewrite is the wrong way most of the time. It’s something that junior developers always cry for, but software veterans will just fix and improve what is already there.
@Morphire can see what you mean, and to clarify from here; I did not take it that way and just referred to some self observation. 
And space for ones own improvement.
Edit: The things I’ve learned about music is pretty much watching YT vidz and other web media, so it’s still only trivia, knowledge that pops up with association to a specific topic, whilst knowledge like @tomfs’ and others seems educated/studied onto the backbone and hands on.
Bless
I’m more talking about the ability to use plugins, based on the obstacles NDSP has claimed caused the delay. Obviously creating the Desktop Editor is much easier to get working… And that took 3 years. Sorry for any confusion.
For me it’s twofold 1) as you said, familiarity is one major convenience – having presets in my plugins that I’ve dialed in that could be copied over instead of trying to replicate them by cobbling together cabs/mics/amps/effects in the QC; and 2) being able to just show up with a QC and play anywhere instead of bringing a laptop and the QC and running multiple signal paths if I want to use tones from one or the other. It’s certainly not a deal breaker for me, and since they’re accepting feature requests it doesn’t hurt to ask, but I’m not going to tantrum if they don’t change their development plan and release schedule to fulfill my requests… they are requests after all.
One thing’s for sure:
I will never care at all about NDSP’s development process. I don’t care what O/S they’re running, the specifics of any architecture, how/if their sprints are run, any of it. These threads always seem to include discussion of how it should be (educated or not) and typically a rebuttal of how it probably is, and I struggle to imagine why anyone wants to spend their energy getting into NDSP’s perceived problems.
In short, I have my own code to write, I don’t want to think about anyone else’s. LARPing someone else’s business model detracts from my enjoyment of owning the product.
To me, the QC is just a box that does a thing, and I’d almost be willing to bet that I’ll be using V2 of this hardware or an alternative product before these threads approach any sort of conclusion.
To be clear, I’m not attacking anyone - these thoughts span multiple threads, not just this one - and I enjoy my QC. Truly just thinking aloud.
Edit to be on-topic, replying to OP, again just my opinion: I don’t need “Neural to offer some reassurance”. I’ve bought the ticket, I’m taking the ride. If it doesn’t pan out, it’ll be the zillionth guitar product I’ve flipped in my lifetime, and that’s fine. For now, the QC is exactly what I want.
Also, a great many YouTubers talk trash for money, it’s really obvious and easy to ignore, so I do.
@MightyMikeAmps, I have uploaded a comparison here, you can check yourself:
https://unity.neuraldsp.com/t/comparison-ndsp-plugin-vs-capture
Let me know what you think, I’m curious.
I just received an official email from NDSP stating the unveiling of the beta version of the Cortex Control desktop controller along with the CorOS 2.10 software update at NAMM. So hopefully all the back and forth over whether they’ll release an editor or not can be put to rest. Of course there will surely be more back and forth about how the editor looks, feels, smells etc.
I’m all for an editor and I’m sure I would probably find myself using it often but I’d rather have no editor and a lot more features that I’d have to configure through the touchscreen than a limited number of features that I can pull up and control on my computer.
I’m going to go with probably not.
Also, still not per-patch input volume? Jesus christ…
I am more optimistic and think we will see the editor before the end of 2023. It is either already in beta testing or should be after the April Namm show (April 13th -15th).
Can you explain the importance of a per-patch input volume. I don’t understand the urgency. It seems like the current global input setting for the inputs should be adequate for most players/setups. Set it once for the guitars you are using for a performance. I know it is not the same as setting it at the output, as input volume settings are upstream, but for overall preset volume you do have the per-patch output block volume available.
From Neural DSP about CorOS 2.1.0: “This is not the complete list of features and changes that will be available in CorOS 2.1.0, just the ones that are available in this beta version.” Who knows if this feature might actually be implemented?
There’s a feature request for that. Your username isn’t on the list of people who voted. Go vote.
Until then, gain block my dude.
I probably don’t understand correctly, but if you need a different input level “per patch” (per preset?), wouldn’t a gain block be sufficient?
Absolutely, but no doubt there will be some claim about ‘how much the actual input gain affects the tone’. I mean, that’s also what the gain control on all the amps do. 
The input gain on my unit is set to 0dB, and 1M Ohm - played around for a while and just put it back to the defaults.
I regularly connect a Les Paul style guitar with Bareknucle pickups, a Tele style with a Seymour Duncan, a normal Epiphone Les Paul, a Jazz bass, an active bass… not had to alter the input gain for any of them, just change the settings on the amps.
Yes same here, and I can add an acoustic guitar to the list.
I keep the input gain at 0dB and I have different presets for different instruments anyhow, so I adjust the gain in the preset.
Nevertheless I was asking the OP, cause I thought I might have missed a point.
I think you need to reconsider if what you are saying is helpful. Just because you edit where you have no computer doesn´t mean others don´t need it, same with getting on your knees… you might like it but others prefer editing in a chair or are older folks.
Not to mention the complaints are about features promised at launch by the company, which you as an user should expect to receive
what other things are unfulfilled? i know about the desktop thing and the plug ins and thats enough for me to be mad but otherwise im pretty happy with the unit and if they deliver i´d be fine.
Is there something else promised i missed?