Simple question: There is the ideas and feature requests site (Logic 2 - Ideas and Feature Requests - Saleae). Here, new requests and features can be created and voted upon.
However, when I select everything except “Open” (Under review + planned + in progress + live + closed), I don’t see any. All the features that I voted for (that I can remember) are still “Open”.
Hence my question: Have any of those requested features ever been implemented?
Great question! Happy to answer that for you.
In particular, we want to keep the list of search results related to only “Open” feature requests. That way, if you are unable to find a feature request posted yet, it is likely a brand new request.
We unlist any feature requests that end up going “Live” to help with keeping search results clean as mentioned above. Any new features and bug fixes we implement will be summarized in our changelog below.
https://ideas.saleae.com/f/changelog/
We don’t use the “Under Review”, “Planned”, or “In Progress” categories. Specifically, we’re unable to commit completion timelines for any requested features at the moment. We’ve been heads down on some high priority projects, some of which we are excited to announce soon. We’d love to get to managing a public roadmap sometime afterwards.
I can answer you cutting the political BS. No , nothing is ever implemented, I have been three years monitoring features that I am interested on, quite basic features that should already be there in the first place, like for instance changing the name of the labels , and there is always the excuse that they are working on a very important project… They think we are stupid, so my recommendation is that don’t ever expect any other feature, as it won’t arrive, maybe it’s time to take a deeper look to the open source, as this is a complete joke
Hi Tim,
It seems this is a decision for your company to make, then.
The issue is that, regardless of whether new ideas have been implemented, forum members can’t track them. Without status updates, there’s no indication that any ideas are being worked on, which erodes faith in the voting process, as you’ve seen.
Personally, I’m deciding between the Pro 8 and a competitor with a mixed-signal analyzer (“Active-Pro” debugger). While the Pro 8 has more analog inputs, the competitor offers other appealing features - especially the inclusion of debugging output in sync with the traces.
To simplify my choice, I tested a Logic-8 clone (sorry, no profit for you there) and was able to program an HLA that mimicked that debugging behavior I wanted. Now, the difference between the two is minimal, and I’m leaning towards the Pro 8, which would benefit your company.
However, I’d really like two features: 1) graphing values, and 2) daisy-chaining multiple devices—both of which would make the Pro 8 more compelling for me.
I’m not asking for priority on these, but I want to highlight that:
It’s not just about me, but I hope you understand how the lack of visible progress (regarding those ideas, at least) affects potential buyers.
Thanks for reading, and all the best!
@saleae.com I absolutely agree with your sentiment below, and thanks for bringing that up.
Filtering for “Live” feature requests that have been implemented, and showing 0 results, doesn’t look great, and your right about not being able to track requests because of this. We had some folks in the past request to hide “Live” implemented feature requests from search results on our ideas site to clean search results up to just requests that have not yet been implemented. Your reason alone seems good enough to “re-publish” the Live implemented features from the ideas site. I’ll chat with the team about that.
Thanks for pointing out the 2 features you want as well.
Both of these are being tracked on our ideas site right now. I added a comment for you on both.
@albert.caba To share my reply to you as well, there are absolutely a ton of features we absolutely need to add to our software asap (some of which have been requested for several years now). Some of these requests are ones you have brought up in the past, and we appreciate you constantly reminding us and holding us accountable on those requests. Channel naming via Automation API is one that’s been brought up a lot for example, which on paper, is an extremely straightforward request.
We’ve mentioned in the past that we’re heads down on other high priority projects, and given that our software team consists of only 3 members total right now, sadly, this means we haven’t been able to work on many of these highly requested features (simple as they may seem) for quite awhile now. We’re excited to officially announce a lot of what we’ve been working on soon, but that comes at the expense and sacrifice of working on many other highly requested features during this time. We’re hopeful we can get to working on many of these highly requested features soon, but as a small team with limited bandwidth, we’ve had to decide on working on one or a few things at a time.
Hi Tim,
Thanks for your reply. I understand it’s a hard choice to make, and you probably understand best how to weigh the importance of implementing exciting but not-yet-announceable features against possible eroding faith of (prospect-) buyers.
As a side remark, I see I did not write clearly enough that I had already found those two issues, and voted for them, so, sorry for that…
Wish you all the best, and let’s see when those exciting new features will be announced then.