Quick Sign In:  

Forum: VirtualDJ Skins

Topic: Skin whit 3 OR 4 Decks - Page: 1

Dieser Teil des Themas ist veraltet und kann veraltete oder falsche Informationen enthalten

i know its almost impossible but let me dream
3 faders and a commutable eq-fader joujoujou

Just see Mix vibes 5.0
 
geposted Fri 26 Sep 03 @ 5:23 pm
not possible lol
 
multi instance? with 2 sound cards&external mixer? maybe is solving the problem
 
multi instance wont put 3 or 4 decks on 1 skin Dimitris :P
 
no it will not...but the "trust your ears theory" will solve this problem:)
 
but he requests a skin with 3 or 4 decks on! which isnt possible!
 
you are right :) we will not have an argue about that pal:)
 
But a good thing would be if multiple instances could talk to each other. It would be nice to "plug" one instance to the one deck of the other.
 
Just get 3 turntables
 
 
wow! :D i liiiiiike it! come on guys make skin like that ;) i would buy third TT :P

DJ Nikki
 
Isn't possible yet in vdj. Maybe one day.
 
@ lej78480

I can’t believe MixVibes Dev Team can do this but VDJ Dev Team can’t. As a matter of fact, I refuse to believe it....

@ DJ Nikki

I think you can control all three players with one turntable—the turntable controls the active player. I almost bought this software because of that! With the Pro version, you get up to 16 players!!

http://www.mixvibes.com/pageeng/page.php?x=mv6pro

Think about it Dev Team!!! Here’s an excellent idea by DJ Ross M (last post on the page):

http://www.virtualdj.com/forums/5617/Skins/multi_instance.html?page=1

Double O
 
You can use 3 or 4 TTS with the multi-instance skin of course.
It's a different view but it works
 
I’ve downloaded your updated Multi-instance skin; I’ll try it out…. I also would like to thank you and the originator of this skin—Dj Morris!

Double O
 
 
or u could buy another comp
 
wow ,good work
 
When I look back at what I said in the linked topics there were a few good ideas but the more I think about it now...theres literally loads of different ways the problem could be handled.

I'll admit this from the start before anyone starts ranting about how thats not suitable for everyone and not everyone needs those kind of resources...I'm a simple person...I always like to have the best technology at my fingertips and at times use very complex systems...I'm prepared to take more hardware to achieve the results and goals I'm looking for...some people are happy with a small portable laptop to run VDJ I'm not and that just comes down to personal prefference.
There are times when I'd love to only carry in a small laptop, but thats not what my business is about.

hopefully as VDJ evolves we will be able to bring together the multiple systems we operate and use different hardware setups but only one piece of software (VDJ) to fit the purpose of each job we do, for now we'll just have to settle for the resources we have at hand.


An Ideal setup for me would incorporate
2 TFT's - 1 which would have 4 individual decks with their own video preview.
...........- The second would feature my VDJ Browser and playlist...along the bottom of the screen I'd have a sample manager.

I'd have an additional 2 Graphics cards with TV-Out which could be interfaced with a hardware video mixer to take the stress of VDJ (This could be expanadable to handle up to 4 seperate video outputs, however realistically I only require the facility of 2 decks able to play video at a time and all able to play audio)

I would have 2 DAC-2 controllers installed in my rack case along with my Pioneer-3000 so I would'nt rely on there being any on-screen buttons to play/pause tracks. All I really need is track information like Names, Times, Video Preview and a couple of other bits, the rest of the space could be devoted to FX management.


Hey I'm just throwing up some of my random ideas, don't attack me for dreaming!!
I'm prepared to investin the hardware to make it all happen but for now I'll settle for what I've got.

On a multi-instance note. I'd love to be able to just match to the track playing in the other instance without using the beat-lock feature, it can yeild very un-reliable results.


Bye for now.
Ross.
 
I Dont believe
 
80%