okay - i’m new on this forum so this may have been discussed already - but - after browsing through posts and topics and spending at least 45 minustes on the IRC channel - {snsn} ive come across more than a few mentions of how old skool certain members are and how they avoided certain trackers because they were too erm, forward thinking etc…
my question is - how many people that are looking forward to seeing all the requests ie, piano roll, arranger view, (full) audio recording, tickless timing, -!! horizontal scrolling parts!!! implemented are gonna moan about how renoise is like a full on DAW and not like the old days of amiga tracking with just 3 and a half tracks and vst’s are for people who cant code c++ when renoise 2 comes out?
etc, etc i’m ranting a bit but you get my (in jest of course) point
Yeah, I’d be happy to hear more about the future plans too. In the old days there was this sub-page where registered users could vote for features to be implemented and it kind of gave the idea what is to be expected in forthcoming version…
So, what are the priorities now - Linux? Tickless? Piano-roll (God forbid!)?, New arranger? Anything else?
What is the time-line for those features?
I know that’s a lot of questions from unregistered, low-post-count user, but then it doesn’t make them any less valid
Plan is to release the Linux builds along with a small 1.9.1 bugfix build first, then filling up the current feature set with fine stuff till 2.0. Making 1.0 “round”, not changing the history of trackers with 2.0.
After 2.0 we’ll start with the regged user feature wishes polling again to set up the order for the big stuff. So the big stuff will come, but I can not tell you in which order as this also depends on you all.
About the trackerism: Renoise always was more than simply a tracker, so we’ll continue like that. I see no reason to skip things like an arranger because we must keep it a tracker. Things envolve, Renoise will as well, but its base will always stay this hex sheet programming way of composing.
The only thing I’m worried about is features getting cluttersome in the interface. If the features added are smart and well integrated, I won’t mind what they add, even if it’s stuff I don’t use…(already did it once with the mixer…I NEVER use that…lol)
nsound: there will ALWAYS be violent resistance to horizontal editing modes in Renoise because by definition, a tracker is a vertical sequencer. To alter that functionality would negate the entire point of Renoise’s existence, and in turn, alienate the overwhelmingly vast majority of its userbase. Besides, there’s an entire range of audio applications that already do this. I don’t, however, see a point in holding back other useful features like an arranger, freezing, or better effect routing, which will not hinder the current functionality, because a small few are SO stuck in the oldschool paradigm that they’re probably better off loading protracker onto an old amiga. Renoise is the pinnacle of tracker evolution, and I hope it stays there, ever pushing forward to keep its title as the best possible solution for vertical sequencing.
Im not a retro festishist of any sort but i do like things vertical. I dont even like that the automation is horizontal really. Maybe if the piano roll is ever included in the way thats been discussed the automation could be reorganised in the same tabbed or switched way.
Renoises strength over “old school” trackers is its willingness to incorporate anything that improves it as a music making device. Its strength over its peers is the fact that it doesnt try to include everything too quickly.
Its a nice balence and its got me useing trackers again after a few years of hardware masochism.
If you want to remain an oldskool tracker, there are a shipload of alternatives that quenches your thirst enough. It has no use to complain about Renoise advancing out of it’s tracker limitations.
Progress is about going further.
I guess that if you are a real oldskool tracker, you can just download an Amiga emulator or use the Minimix project and go back to soundtracker where you can load at max just 32kbyte sized samples.
Arguments from oldskool folks that want the tracker to stick to its old values are very weak since the old values are based upon the limits of the platforms back then and were not build to amuse users in a specific way. We don’t have to live with limitations platformwise now so why should we still pretend that we have?
How about 2 DSP chains attached to every instrument. One “per voice” chain and one “whole instrument” chain.
(The reasoning behind two chains is that distortion sounds great monophonic but often terrible over many voices thus “per voice” DSP)
Right now I’m manually doing “per instrument” chains by allocating 1 track = 1 instrument.
Fully modular will come… later, when the “DSP chain” becomes a full-screen DSP view
