View Full Version : Reassigning LiveControl buttons??

04-21-2009, 10:47 PM
We have several buttons on the LiveControl that are never used in our environment like the txt and ddr buttons. But I would really like to be able to reassign some of these unused buttons to select EXT2 and EXT3.

Is there a way to change the function activated by these buttons? I have to believe that there is a mapping table somewhere that activates a specific function when a button is pressed...

It would be cool to be able to change these.


07-06-2010, 10:38 AM
Look Here: http://www.newtek.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1002091&postcount=6 :)



02-15-2012, 03:25 AM
Hello there!

I am also desperate to re-map my LC-11 for my Tricaster 450 Extreme. I need to lose the 4 inputs at the start of the row and replace them with the 4 virtual inputs.

Has anybody figured out the chnages needed to the xml to do this?

many thanks


02-16-2012, 05:28 PM
We had to do ours too. We ditched inputs 7 and 8, mapped the virtual inputs to alt+1-6, and some other little changes. I think the default configurationis sloppy. Back up the XML files before you mess with them. And if you break it, just do a restore. Newtek officially does not support mucking around with the XML file, so.. Disclaimer and whatnot.

02-17-2012, 05:15 AM
Hi there - thanks I have managed to do some re-mapping but struggling with the LEDs following in the mixer - do you have an eaxcmple you can put my way?



02-17-2012, 07:45 AM
I think the default configuration is sloppy.Yeah, you're right. We just knocked it out on napkins after spending too long at a bar one night. :devil:

I'm always amazed by the .... lets, say "temerity" ... of this sort of remark. Now, I'd love for us to be able to provide ways for users to easily remap various devices, both for use with the product they were designed to work with and everything that follows. The sheer number and diversity of said devices would would mean an awful lot of work, though. The time to accommodate all of this would need to be taken away from other development, but equally important, Customer Support would be out in the parking lot slashing our tires because of the problems it would cause them.

The fact is, without getting into specific cases, you'd be astonished how much consideration, evaluation, and review is given to every little detail, even when (as in this case) we're discussing something which some others might consider merely a 'design afterthought' - such as the best ways to adapt a device designed for one TriCaster model to one that appears years later with considerably different features. But we do so with regularity when designing our systems.

Even afterward, from time to time customers will ask for changes, additions, and the like, and this will often trigger a review, and sometimes additions. As it happens, just yesterday I spent several hours testing changes and additions that were made quite recently - at the expense of dev time by a senior engineer I might add - to provide added convenience for those using TW-42 with TCXD models. No-one asked for these changes, no reseller comments or forum feature request suggested them. When I was testing the new 850 TW (which I do in depth while documenting every device or application we produce), a few items came to mind where adding to or modifying the TW-42 features would provide greater consistency and an improved workflow. I wrote these up, they were discussed 'in committee', agreed upon, and in due course - despite the fact that NAB is quickly approaching - they were implemented, tested, and documented.

Now actually, we could often easily just not bother. For example, LC-11 was originally designed for use with TriCaster Studio. We could have stopped there. TW-42 too comes from an earlier period, too, quite a few years, models, and features ago. But rather than force customers to buy, say, a new 450CS or 850TW, we want customers who invested in an LC-11 or TW-42 all those years ago to get the most mileage out of it that is possible. So - even though there isn't a single sales dollar in our doing so (in fact some might contend such efforts give users a reason not to buy the newer control surface), when designing a new TriCaster we invest the time to come up with the best possible 'universal' solution we can to let them do so. Universality is hard to achieve and often requires compromises, but consistency of behavior when a control surface is connected to different models (even those it was not intended for originally) is a big factor in the design. Certainly for use with an individual device, it would be quite a simple matter to 'customize' the mapping - making it less "sloppy", as some would have it - but doing so would be quite hazardous for someone who uses an LC-11 with a Studio in the morning, and then the same evening plugs it into a 450.)

Sloppy, eh? :twak:

If you have a specific idea that you think would improve the functionality of a CS, or indeed any of our products, feel free to post them in the Feature Request area. I promise you it will be given consideration - clearly a good deal more consideration than some imagine. But let's be professional, and keep the pejoratives to a minimum shall we.

02-17-2012, 10:23 AM
I have mixed feelings about this. I don't know that "sloppy" is really an appropriate word. And perhaps it was just a poor choice of words.

That being said, I do not use an LC-11 on my 850Ex, but used to use an LC-11 on the XD300, when we had one. I fully admit to wishing I had a configuration utility to allow me to map the preview and program busses.

On the one hand, I can see how not allowing users to potentially muck up the operations is very desirable, but for users who only need to use the virtual inputs, continually having to ALT-preview is a real nuisance.

On a side note, maybe there is a way to do an "ALT+FTB" to lock the preview and program busses in to the alternative mode? I don't know if that would really solve anything, but I'm just throwing it out there.

So I guess the question for Newtek to consider (they probably already have), is do you want users manually changing the configurations and opening the door to problems, or do you want to provide a safe alternative through a utility to allow users to map the control surface for the LC-11. (I really don't think that this is necessary for the 450 and 850 CS models, as they have just about every button under the sun.)

02-17-2012, 10:32 AM
I fully admit to wishing I had a configuration utility to allow me to map the preview and program bussesMe too. The trouble is that you would need a different one for every control device that comes along, and it would have to be updated regularly to account for every new model of TriCaster, and sometimes for different software versions on a single model. Frankly, it's just not likely to be happen, being far from trivial.

At the end of the day, capable advanced users can likely figure out how to remap things; less experienced users can at least get some continued utility out of their older gear, and those who really need the newer control surfaces that fully conform to a given TriCaster would be well advised to consider trading up. I seriously doubt any of this will change, sorry Zach. It's just not practical.

02-17-2012, 03:53 PM
Yeah, you're right. We just knocked it out on napkins after spending too long at a bar one night. :devil:

I'm always amazed by the .... lets, say "temerity" ... of this sort of remark... (snip)... But let's be professional, and keep the pejoratives to a minimum shall we.

Yeah, I dunno Steve. I guess I was in a bad mood last night.

The thing that made me finally dig in to the XML was the virtual inputs. Having V1 be Alt+1 strikes me as the most user-friendly and logical layout. V1 being Alt + 4 is not an easy one to get in to muscle memory.

So we kept the keycaps as they were, and made what we think is better use of the ALT button to group functions logically, instead of simply numerically. So Net2 is the alt for EXT/Net1. Stills and Sounds became Alt+ sources for DDR1 and DDR2, which kept their buttons. DDR2 as Alt+1? I don't see how that could ever become an instinctive eyes-up keypress.

All in all... when going back and forth between a Pro, a 300, and an 850, keeping the keys where they are and making the XML changes was the only thing that would have worked for us. Our button pushes are consistent across all three of our machines, which seems neat and logical to me.

But: we had to make a sacrifice to get it: We have absolutely no access to inputs 7 and 8 from our control surface. It also means our buttons on our control surface are not in the same physical order as the buttons on screen. I'm sure this would not be acceptable to many people, and I certainly understand why Newtek mapped it out the way they did.

Here's how ours looks:


We're wasting a button, and I never need TXT on preview/live, but stille, I find it to be more elegant - especially since we still use the LC-11 with our Pro - but with issues that would possibly make it unacceptable as the default layout from the manufacturer.

If you wanted all 8 inputs and VI, the following might be more reasonable:

1/V1, 2/V2, 3/V3, 4/V4, 5/V5, 6/V6, 7/V7, 8/V8, DDR1/DDR2, Stills/Titles, Net1/Net2

You'd still be moving keycaps around, but I think the Alt combinations are much more logical.


I was going to write a little drag-and-drop utility to configure the buttons it'd be a pretty quick little project, as Newtek's XML implementation is actually quite elegant. But, as Steve says, things change, and that might be unmanageable. I do think the XML format could be unified across all devices (it largely already is) and perhaps incorporate a lookup table that would be a little easier to edit, right at the top of the file.

02-23-2012, 04:34 PM
Great idea, but what's in it for NewTek? Happy customers I suppose, but they have a product that does what you want, so what would be their business reason for a remap config application?

02-23-2012, 05:08 PM
I suspect that they'd be considerably less happy if we took the time to do that instead of what we are working on (long hours, I might add). Let me put it this way: Do you really want that instead of 'x'? Engineering resources are finite. If we pour days into what is quite trivial by comparison, you will miss out on a lot.

08-03-2012, 12:53 AM
We all need remaping. I need remaping for my keyboard for foreign characters in lower thirds and titles. I need to remap MIDI keys for program changes and different features. Every case is different. Every one has different needs and creativity. We may need to create batch processes for a key or macros or a set of key shortcuts. It is all about needs, solutions and flexibility.

I am sure some may not have that kind of need. But not all. A pendulum ...

08-03-2012, 06:31 AM
I suspect that they'd be considerably less happy if we took the time to do that instead of what we are working on (long hours, I might add). Let me put it this way: Do you really want that instead of 'x'? Engineering resources are finite. If we pour days into what is quite trivial by comparison, you will miss out on a lot.

Just seeing this response 6 months later because someone just revived this old thread. Fascinating reasoning.

08-03-2012, 07:19 AM
Written in February, but still valid. Consider all that has happened since then; then consider that the work continues. Finally, on the point of this particular thread, consider that 8000 has fully mappable keystroke shortcuts - not to mention macros. I'm of the mind that the great majority of what has been done was clearly more valuable to more people than reconsidering the layout of a control surface specifically designed quite a few years ago now for use with TriCaster Studio. No offense intended, just being pragmatic here ...

08-03-2012, 07:30 AM
Sure, it's like telling someone with a Camry who wants an upgraded stereo they can go out and buy a Lexus, but I see your point. But it seems like the good idea has made it into the product line. That's a good thing. Guess someone decided it was not an "either-or" proposition. No offense taken. Especially since it's a direct answer to my February question: "what's in it for NewTek." You answered succinctly.

08-03-2012, 07:40 AM
Guess someone decided it was not an "either-or" proposition.Well, actually it was. It was either 'devote Engineering resources to an older product (LC-11)', one which people have been using with a reasonable measure of contentment for many years, or use the time of a number of people for other and arguably more valuable projects. I'm certainly not opposed in principle to the former, but balance is needed.

08-03-2012, 08:10 AM
Of course, I was responding to your 8000 comment, so that quote you took is a bit out of context, but it does go further to answer my original question: "what's in it for NewTek," which you've answered with aplomb.

Besides, I think the argument is framed too narrowly. There's no reason why a third party could develop such a thing, and we see above that people have done it manually.

It would probably take as much time responding to the request as it would to give permission for someone to code such an application themselves. It's a finite problem.

Thanks Steve.

08-03-2012, 09:41 AM
English is a wonderful, flexible language - unless, of course, you need to communicate. ;)

08-03-2012, 10:54 AM
LOL. How true! Can I steal that one and use it next semester with my students?