From a professional/broadcast perspective the naming convention of vMix is really confusing and needless difficult. Output External Mix are all interconnected in a weird way. Mix 1 = Output 1 = fixed but Mix 2 is an input that has to be routed to output 2??? Its not consistent.

Suggestions:

Maybe introduce an offspring for the true professionals/broadcasters called vMixPro so existing / less demanding users can keep working the way they're used.

Let vMixPro have Mix/Effect (ME) busses as outputs like a real vision switcher. Cheap license has one ME, the more expensive the license the more ME busses (up till 4). Call them ME1 ME2 ME3 ME4. Each ME has a PGM and PVW bus. ME1PGM, ME1PVW, ME2PGM etc.
All ME's work in the same resolution/framerate so each input only needs 1x conversion.

Same for AUX busses. Cheap license 1 or no AUX, more expensive licenses more AUX busses (up till 6-10). Call them AUX 1, AUX 2 etc.

Each bus can be turned on or off to NDI. Optional scaling for each NDI feed.

Each physical output (SDI, graphics card) can select one of the busses. Optional scaling for each physical output.

Streaming can select one bus per stream. Optional scaling for each stream.

Other wishes

Multicorder can also select iso audio inputs. Preferably per each video track but separate recording would help.

Audiomixer has (a license dependent number of?) fixed channels and each channel can select an input from either embedded audio, audio interface / dante.

Audio inputs can be direct outputs on DANTE

Each ME can be assigned an audio bus.

Each caller return can receive a dedicated audio input (via Dante)

Each caller return can receive a dedicated video bus (AUX)

These improvement would make an already remarkable piece of software even more amazing.

Hi Doggy,

Thanks for replying.



Ok, maybe not the best choice of words. Let's say people with a broadcast or AV background used to working with hardware based switchers. Not to be negative about others but these people do tend to do multicam a tad longer then the 'vMix generation'. And as vMix matures more of these experienced multicam people use the tool, but I'm sure they al frown on this choice of structure/naming. Sure you can say they are of the 'old' generation and should adapt to the new way of business. That would be fine if it was an improvement, but I can't say that it truly is. I can imagine it grew out of resource limitations but maybe it is about time to switch to a structure that fits more in the industry standard regarding setup and naming. I'm sure it would even make it easier to sell the software as a replacement for hardware switching and make it easier for the people coming from hardware switcher to adapt and thus easier to sell the switch to managers.

Another feature missing is the possibility to choose outputs as sources in the multiviewer or at least have some status text field in the UI that says what source is going to output 2-4. Not so nice if your in a position where you don't have eyes on all set screens.

Curious what type of usecases you are using vmix in and if such a radical change in structure / naming would benefit you or would make it impossible for you to use vMix?

Best Regards

Milo

Very possibly, considering vMix was first released in 2009.

Anyone who's been in the field since before 2009 has been in the field longer than people who have solely used vMix, which is what I assume "vMix generation" means.



Great. The more the merrier.



Great. I'm glad we're all on the same page.

What works best for a hardware solution won't necessarily work for a software solution.

And one of the best things about vMix is how easy it is to just start & go. There's very little learning curve & the naming conventions are all descriptive & intuitive.



is not that.



Why not?

You talk a lot about "the industry standard" and what you're used to, but you don't once say why this is worse.



Why?

As it stands now, it's intuitive, it's simple, and it works.

What benefit would be derived from making the naming system more convoluted?



What you're missing is that this isn't a benefit.

People used to hardware switches can still learn vMix just like everyone else. Most of the functions are named in an intuitive way that renders their functions self-explanatory.

There's nothing about vMix that will cause someone used to hardware switching to be any more confused than a layman, and there's very little about vMix that would confuse a layman.

What you're proposing is changing that dynamic completely & making it so that people used to hardware switches are the only ones able to look at vMix and figure out what's going on without studying the manual or googling everything.

That's not a positive.



With how simplistic & self-explanatory the vMix UI is, the only people who'd benefit from "a radical change in structure/naming" are the people used to that structure/naming.

And, as I pointed out, those people are just as capable of using the current one as everyone else. It is, again, extremely simple, intuitive, and self-explanatory.

The same is not true for the reverse.

If you need something overly technical & convoluted, there are other options available to you. But there's no situation in which the massive overhaul you suggest is a good idea.

Why is an abbreviation that most people have never heard, which abbreviates industry jargon that most people have never heard, more difficult for those people to understand than a straightforward descriptor that requires nothing more than the knowledge of what they hope to accomplish?

You're seriously asking that?



I disagree, as do most people who use the program.

One of the biggest complaints is that it's overly simplistic & dumbed down (which I, naturally, take issue with).

In fact, that's your complaint.



I don't understand what this means, nor do I relate to it.



That's exactly what's there.

When you click "Add input" you get a popup that lists all the categories on the left. You select the category for the input you want to add, and you go from there.



You have now. Hi.

Unless this is your first time using a Windows program, you should know that buttons & features are often in context menus.

Want to add another row to a table in Microsoft Word? Right click.

Want to refresh your desktop? Right click.

So, if there's a function you want, but can't find, instinct says to right click.

Regardless, even if certain elements aren't intuitive, overhauling it to resemble the convoluted nature of a hardware switcher is in no way a positive solution.



And making the process even more convoluted will help them by...?

I've been using vMix for productions since version 16 or 17.

My first live show was back when you had to use Hangouts on Air to go live on YouTube.

The only thing I had to look up before I hit the ground running was what to do to get the Hangouts on Air box to recognize my vMix feed as a webcam, and it was simple as clicking the button that was front and center.

Over the years, vMix has grown a decent amount & I've had to refer to the help pages a lot more often to read up on using the new features.

There hasn't, however, been one that I can think of that's been in a location that I felt didn't make sense or was named in a way that didn't match pretty much exactly what I was looking for.



Neither do I.

I've made posts in "Feature Requests" and "+1'ed" others'.

What I haven't done, however, is advocate a complete overhaul to the design & naming system.

You "love vMix", but you want to change everything about it beyond the core functionality, even though the simplicity of both is the reason that most people without your background & knowledge use the program, myself included.



Great, then post about that. I may even +1 some of your ideas.

But, in this thread, from your very first post in it, you've been talking about wanting vMix to adapt to suit the industry professionals at the expense of everyone else.



I have absolutely no idea what any of that means, and, given how much money I've saved up over the years & invested in my vMix license key, I hope they never change it in such a way that I have to understand what you just said.