Whistling Fish Software :: Forum

Peter, many thanks for your thoughts. Perhaps as you're a new user I'll wait until you've explored further before I consider changes, although my initial reaction is that your "Start Date" option has merit.

I did give some thought to laminated necks which an increasing number of builders seem to be offering, but where necks and fretboards are concerned, I concluded that there are too many combinations and permutations of materials and features for a set price structure to work well. If you have a standard set of materials and features for your necks, you can always cater for exceptions to the norm by adding them as variations on the Build Options tab.

Once again, thanks for taking the time to document your ideas, and I look forward to your further thoughts.

Regards
Pete

There may be too many variations of necks and fretboard combinations but maybe instead of using that area to add material maybe you could make it so that within that window we can just select from an option that has been previously added in the "options" tab. That way we have more options available and prices that add up automatically.

Drop downs or a place to manually input scale lengths, nut widths and such would be nice.

I would rather not have the scale lengths be part of the model presets but rather an option or an open place to type the desired scale or scales if thats the case. Only 1 scale length option paired with 1 multi scale may be a bit too limited.

Loving it so far, just wish there was a MAC version.

peterm wrote:

Sorry, you may have to draw me a picture where this one is concerned - I don't fully understand what it is you have in mind. Please feel free to email me if it's easier or more convenient.

Instead of having fields for the neck options like you do, make us set up those options on the options tab and then make it so that we can pull from the options through that window.

peterm wrote:

Drop-down lists allowing selection of previously entered values or entry of new ones is a change that can easily be implemented. I'll have a think about where that might be appropriate.

Thats great!

peterm wrote:

I gather from this comment that your standard models are often subject to variation, even where scale lengths are concerned. My thinking was that of a hobbyist who builds Martin clones where, for instance, a OO has a 24.9" scale and an OM has a 25.4" scale, and so on. I can see how that might be limiting if you're varying scale lengths from one instrument to the next and the instruments are derived from the same basic model. I'll think about the best way to address this.

Yep, thats exactly the case with many of us.

peterm wrote:

Where operating systems are concerned, you enlightened Mac users only represent around 5% of the market. As much as I'd like to, therefore, it's hard to justify the effort it would take to port the existing application to the Mac operating system. The best I can offer is a suggestion that you investigate the various means by which you can run Windows applications on your Mac computer. Have a look at Wine (www.winehq.org/about), Boot Camp (www.apple.com/macosx/compatibility) and Cross Over (www.codeweavers.com) for starters.

I've been running your software natively though VMware Fusion and fits the bill for now.

Thanks for the feedback - it's greatly appreciated.

Cheers
Pete

Pete, I can help promote your product if you want, I am going to say that it needs a little tweaking to accommodate a few more people but in the end you should get this to became a must for many users.