Alternatively it would be neat to simply be able to automate the instrument effects chains directly (the best variant, we could left click to record, use the higher resolution and edithave it all run directly, if it would mean that an instrument would need to be bound to a track, so be it)
or indirectly via the instrument automation device, you could ctrl-shift-m - click a parameter and make it available to the instrument automation device.
I have a feeling the number 8 was chosen more do to visual reasons than anything else.
I’d vote to be able to automate the chains directly. Having to add a macro device in order to automate (only 8) parameters is such a messy way to do it. It’s almost like the two things were designed in isolation and then cobbled together as an afterthought.
I’d like that much better too but I have no doubt that just adding more would be far simpler to implement than to redesign the system.
I’m starting to think about an instrument effects chain extractor tool… Funny I’ve spent (and still am) spending such a long time extracting instruments with effects chains into a neat xrni (macros aside) and now I want to take it all out again when using it in a song.
Yes, also for doofer please! Half sized controls / 2 rows, more than 16, plus movable, changeable order by drop’n’drop. Cool would be switchable control between KNOB, MINI SLIDER AND BINARY SWITCH !! (But thats premium ) + custom value scales, nu option is the parameter control list of the knob like “virtual value range”, “virtual value stepping”
Can you please just make any renoise instrument available in the instrument automation device as a target? Since it saves a lot of space, and - at last for me- it is also more easy to use a slider than a knob… and it has unlimited slots…
I get the idea that 8 macros is not sufficient, but for guys that don’t even use fx chains in your instruments, why would you ever need as many as you’re suggesting?
Now i must admit i’ve gotten used to the 8 macro limitation so it’s no big deal for me, but i wouldn’t mind to double it, but when you’re suggesting 255 macros and what not i can’t really see the point. I just imagine how horrible it would be to find the one knob i needed in a 255 macro setup.
TheBellows: the macro You wanted will be within that 8/16 range :P.
The better-idea variants are suggested in the posts above, but the macro system is already there and redux compatible. I can’t imagine using more than 32/64 macros as macros, but lets say I want to make a behemoth instrument consisting of a couple of intertwined complex instruments, that 255 will come in handy (especially assuming we will eventually have access to them via api)
It sounds a bit like you’re asking for a feature just for some silly project you have in mind, don’t get me wrong i’m not against it, but i don’t know how realistic it is for such a request to come true.
I’d like to see that instrument of yours though, it sounds pretty wicked.
It makes it possible to extract the instrument effects chains into actual separate tracks, as routing to any track is possible now, while still maintaining the same triggers (key trackers on group/send tracks in doofers still get triggered for example) , it may not work in some scenarios but it still definitely helps to avoid the 10 automation parameter limit.
) + custom value scales, nu option is the parameter control list of the knob like “virtual value range”, “virtual value stepping”
