QC Feature Requests/mail to support

Quad Cortex
1

Hi,

I would like to ask everyone a favour.
Please do not only vote for the implementation of features/fixes here on the forum, but also write neural about it here: support@neuraldsp.com

I feel like we need to bug them a bit. Let me explain why.

I am very thankful that Neural keep on updating the Quad Cortex and I hope the developers can enjoy a summer holiday after all their work for CorOS 3.0.
At the same time, I get the feeling Neural is not really aware of the true wishes for features and fixes of the Quad Cortex community, since they are not really addressing the wishes of the community and/or giving feedback to them in this forum. An awesome community full of great ideas - some of the wishes of the community have not been addressed or commented by Neural since 2021 - so let’s write them our priorities directly so that it doesn’t take another three years…

You can easily see the wishes by the community if you sort the feature requests by vote here:

Let me point out some things that would feel major to me.
The following ones, I believe, should be easy fixes that are huge quality of life improvements:

Now some bigger ones that probably need more programming, but would make the Quad Cortex a truly amazing and outstanding device in my humble opinion:

  • many many more, feel free to comment…

The Quad Cortex is a great device already, but still we are many users that feel like Neural is actually giving away an incredible amount of the Quad Cortex potential…

Since we do not get much feedback from Neural in the official forum - I really hope our voices will be heard and the matters addressed soon :slight_smile:

So if you made it to here, please vote and please send a mail to support@neuraldsp.com asking for the implementation of what the community is wishing for.

The Quad Cortex currently feels like it is still in the development stage. Let’s unlock the true potential of this wonderful device together!

Cheers!

6 Likes
2

I received immediately a reply, which sounds promising! Seems to be really worth it to reach out to the support team! Please do so, too! :blush:

This is their reply →

Hello, thank you for reaching out.

We are aware of the features requested on the forums, and our development team is taking said recommendations into consideration for future updates on the pipeline.

Please also keep in mind that on the latest period we have also been working on updating plugins to their X versions, developing and releasing new plugins, bringing PCOM to Quad Cortex with the first batch of available plugins already operational, updating Quad Cortex features and capabilities, as those introduced in CorOS 3.0.0 and much more, even behind the scenes, with things we cannot share yet!

We are very grateful of our community, their support and their passion for the unit and our plugins, and love checking out the feedback and ideas they might have for it, and even on our busiest times, we are aware of them and finding ways to try and get them implemented as soon as possible.

I, of course will forward this information to our development team, and thank you for taking the time to remind us of the amazing ideas our community has had so far.

Kindest regards.

Best regards,

Neural DSP Support Team

4 Likes
3

I love just about every one of these ideas. Coming from Fractal AND Helix, there are a lot of things those units do that QC could do to really make it the best of the best. I love how Cliff interacts on the forums!

2 Likes
4

If you’re new to this forum here, here’s a few things I’ve noticed over the last 4 years of participating:

NDSP does not interact here much, officially. I wouldn’t expect “Cliff” levels of direct info. They have gotten MUCH better over the years at communicating, but it’s still not very interactive.

They DEFINITELY have been taking this forum into account on Feature Requests.
You can see in the “Fulfilled Requests” area many have already been accomplished. They were usually the top-requested ones.

Just because other very popular requests seem to go ignored doesn’t mean they are. They know what we want most, but that doesn’t mean the framework exists to implement them yet. As they acknowledged in your email, there’s been a LOT going on behind the scenes lately.

Their most recent Dev Update says the pace will pick up now that the HUGE PCOM hurdle is mostly behind them. We’ll see how they make good on that. This is something we’ve all been looking forward to for a long time.

One of the best things you can do here for your sanity is to come to terms with this NOT being Fractal or Line 6 -Land; the pace is slow here and there’s only recently begun to be much better transparency and communication. Use the community to your advantage and become a part of it and we’ll get thru the frustrations together.

7 Likes
5

PCOM was the QC developers’ white whale for a long time. That’s why it seems like they kept ignoring feature requests for things that seem really obvious to us users for the past year and a half. But they are definitely paying attention. We have certainly seen them grant some of the feature requests posted here.

3 Likes
6

Wow, it’s like you’re in my head (or you’ve read some of my feature requests!)

I absolutely agree with every single one of these ideas, having thought of some of them my self too)
And I commend you on the constructive and communicative approach you suggest (you’ll see my various responses to people elsewhere on this forum who say things like ‘I hope Neural introduce this’; we need to be more proactive than that for sure)

And respect to all of the other responses on this thread too, they all describe the situation perfectly based on my experience as a QC owner so far.

1 Like
7

Thank you everyone for your encouraging words - I am feeling thankful to be a part of a caring, creative and supportive community!
Let’s rock this together! :metal::notes:

8

Let’s see, what’s your best bet what could possibly be included in CorOS 3.1. ?

I’m going for allowing to mute all inputs in the tuner and keeping the device screen open, when you click the revert option.

9

Looks like they used the resources they should have used to make the Quad Cortex the device we all want on the development of this very strange Nano Cortex thing…

1 Like
10

Dan confirmed to me this morning that there are separate teams for the Devices, no QC dev team members were harmed in the making of the Nano.

it does explain the NAMM fiasco though

2 Likes
11

Too funny says “post must be at least 15 characters”

1 Like