if you do ad this can we move around without the mouse?
i like the idea of stepping thru at a 1/2/4/8/16/32 tick level of zooming…kinda like in BUZZ.
this gives me a reason to stop using my renoise patterns in BUZZ.
I love it.
seems like a very bad idea, IMO. I’ve only used renoise for a month or two and i transfered over from fruity loops and cubase. the reason i transfered?
because i discovered i love tracking and that it’s much easier to use the keyboard than the mouse.
piano roll and linear arranger seem like quite bad ideas for renoise. if you want to use these things, just get a copy of fruity loops. the thing i like about renoise is that it’s completely different from all the linear programs i was used to. the direction it’s going in seem like it’s trying to become a copy of fruity loops.
my idea for the arranger?
make it almost an exact clone of the sequencer, with some changes. patterns get letters instead of numbers. the order of pattern lettering is the same order as on your keyboard, QWERTYUIOP… to make it easy to use. there would also be a global pattern, for applying automation to effects over a whole song.
there would be seperate tracks, to apply global effects to the patterns put in them, same as the sequencer. you can get a much richer sound by using complex combinations of fx.
there would also be “note effects” like in the sequencer, volume, offset and play backwards would work very well IMO. some effects obviously could not be implemented, like pitch slide.
I produce drum n bass, and renoise is favored by many drum n bass producers because the sample offset and all the other sample effects are ideal for editing breakbeats. editing whole tracks in such an easy manner would be amazing, beyond the cababilities of any other sequencer i know of and would make songs sound much more organic and less loopy.
this kind of thing, because no other program uses it, would also be a reason for very many people to switch over. why would someone want to switch, only to have the same arranger as any other program?
the concept of tracking has been like a revelation for my producing in these past months. please don’t turn it into a crappy fruity loops clone.
-my 2 cents
hmm I just love the playlist in FL Studio. Why? Because you can quickly test ideas for arrangement and variations of themes. For me that means I’m more eager to try something else.
and because I don’t need to copy the same sequence over and over again…
http://www.dogsonacid.com/attachment.php?s…&postid=4028806
here is a quick mockup at the above link.
the pattern arranger would look very similar to the pattern editor. it would be another window, like the instr. envelopes and the sample editor.
instead of tracks like in the pattern editor, there would be groups. each group would have it’s own dsp chain. the group would have pattern sequencing columns where you could type in the pattern to be triggered.
the arranger as it is now would still sit off to the side. it would act like a group but have the appearance it has now. it would also still be visible in the pattern editor, for importing files from renoise 1.5, or for people who like the old way better.
the groups would also have audio columns which could be extended with another little set of arrows. group 03 in the picture has the audio column extended. it would also be possible to collapse the pattern column to have a group of only audio clips, as in group 04.
there would be “pattern effects” as well. these would be like the sample effects in the pattern editor. of course, some sample effects (like pitch slide) could not be adapted to pattern effects. you would also be able to set panning and volume, like in the pattern editor.
there would be two rulers along the side, one displaying time and one displaying beats. you would be able to set the zoom in “beats per line” (000-008-016-024… as opposed to 000-032-064-096…, for example.)
IMO this is alot more flexible and allows for more creativity than the standard linear arranger (the pattern effects allow for alot of variation) .
@ hold up
Similar ways of doing this is discussed in the Rni Future thread.
There you trigger patterns as an instrument. So you can track each ‘instrument-pattern’ inside the instrument. And then trigger the instrument (and the instrument-patterns) in a normal pattern.
This way there is nothing wrong in having an traditional seqeuncer on top of this again.
You can then choose on what level you want to arrange stuff, or not arrange at all.
The way a seqeuncer has been discussed in this thread, there was never any intention to break up the current pattern arrenger to fit in a more traditional arranger.
cheers
Ok, I haven’t read the entire thread. Sorry if I just repeat something old here. I don’t think it’s a good idea to have two different interfaces for arranging a song, better settle on either horizontal or vertical. I used the current vertical sequencer and added a few functions I’d like to see, which of many has already been suggested. This is just how I suggest it’d be implemented. It’s also a development of a suggestion I made a while ago:
Live Performance, On stage with Renoise
The song is at the same position in these three pictures. Any patterns and blocks that are playing are highlighted. The grey square indicates which pattern is being displayed in the pattern editor. Having follow pattern turned off would allow us to edit any pattern in the song while it is playing… is that possible today?
A hotkey to switch focus between the arranger and the editor might be a good idea? That way you could move around the arranger with arrow keys.
To the right is the name of the patterns in the currently selected column. Or should there be a possibility to switch on the name display on each pattern/block column individually? As now it could be hidden completely.
- Pattern length is reflected in the pattern sequencer, this could be turned on/off for the full old school feel.
With everything minimized it’d look even more basic than today.
-
Click left arrow to define blocks. These would replace the loop function. One defines where one block ends, and that is also where next block starts. A button/hotkey turns block loop on/off. And perhaps clicking the down arrow? A number of block columns could be defined and switched between. Selecting a block would have the same effect as selecting all the patterns within that block. A block start/end should match the start/end of all patterns at that song position, IMO, otherwise it could get confusing.
-
The right arrow would add another pattern column to make it possible to play multiple patterns at once. Something like editstep or zoom would allow for precise placement, or a snap (start, 4/4, 8/8 etc.) function for fast arranging. Triggering a second pattern could perhaps also be done with a new pattern effect command? I think a lot of old schoolers would prefer that.
To prevent a column of patterns for playing, just click PLAY, changing it to OFF (+ keyboard shortcut).
So, old schoolers could use it minimized, and it would work the same way as today. Others might prefer to use a more columns of patterns, with fewer tracks in each.
So, what did I not think about? Let me have it.
Or should the arranger use the same principles as the pattern editor? …with text in rows and columns. Could be nice too, perhaps even better as long as all the same functions are there.
Looks nice 
however…
I can try to summarize what has been discussed from the beginning of this thread.
Lets take the concept of playing several patterns at once like the picture above.
Lets say you let 3 patterns play at once. What will happend to the number of trackscopes when you play several pattern at once? Lets say your patterns have 16 tracks each. Will you only see 16 tracks at once? Or will there be 16*3=48 tracks? What will happend when you change the number of patterns playing at once?
Can you see the patterns side by side at all in the pattern editor with your scenario?
You could then say yes and that you only make small patterns. Like for each instrument and only have 1-3 tracks per pattern.
Now this is what we have been discussing in here.
But instead of patterns we think of this as clips.
Howere you should look at a clip as just a clip (like a marked block) of pattern editor data. The clips are independent from the physical tracks. Its like you have endless many clipboards. And a name/list of them.
Then you might understand that it makes sense to still have the old single pattern arranger in addition to a clip arranger.
Think of a pattern as two markers in time with a group of clips attached to it.
A clip can also be a streamed audiowave, a automationclip or a fx-envelope clip.
I recommand you to read the entire thread. It has many interesting ideas and problems. 
Ok, I’ve read most of the discussion now, and I grasp the clip idea.
I’m not too fond of the GUI tho.
In Martinals suggestion, clips can be copied/moved/edited in the pattern editor. Then wouldn’t it be better to keep it there, move automation envelopes etc to the pattern editor as has been suggested before, and add a zoom-out function? No need for a new screen IMO. Would look pretty close to your and Martinals screenshots - only vertical.
I was thinking that only the selected pattern (group of clips) would show in the editor. Not sure about that tho. Maybe it would be possible to view several patterns in a smooth way?
I might do a screen to show how I’d like to see the arranger idea merged into the pattern editor and the sequencer. Minimized on normal zoom level, everything would look like today… stay tuned.
Here’s a fast sketch of my pattern sequencer suggestion and the pattern editor in arranger mode. There are three patterns playing at once. Column one, two and four. This example only have a few tracks per pattern. It’s not zoomed out, but you can still see the previous and following patterns in the first column.
Hm, displaying several patterns at once presents a few problems I didn’t think of. There might have to be a set number of tracks, so there would be a gap between column 2 and 4 in the pattern editor.
Notice, there are gaps in the selected pattern block sequence. The song would simply skip a few patterns and continue at the next block.
The most intuitive clip arranger, I think, would be to fit it exactly on top of the pattern editor. Even the newest noob would understand what everything represents.
(The top part would obviously change as well, and note/panning/volume/command-lines wouldn’t still be there I guess.)
Maybe a setting for each individual track? So you could choose what you want the track to display - normal pattern view, clips, automation, piano roll etc. Would solve the “exactly on top” problem as well.
yes… this is also how it has been discussed/suggested already .
You would of course see the clip in the pattern editor. Either as fullcolor like your screenshots or just frames or both. The frames/clips could have different border to see if it belongs to the current pattern or a previous pattern etc.
I still dont think this will replace a separate arranger. You would have to zoom much more out to see several patterns. You will also have problems with the horizontal zoom. A single track can be 12 columns wide. That can be many very wide clips to ‘arrange’. I feel this will be a lot more hassle to always zoom in/out on both axis then just toggle views with a separate arranger window.
How much graphics to throw into the pattern editor has also been looked at in several threads. I’m not sure how easy or well that will work if you are supposed to scroll a window full of numbers, automation and even wave graphics.
Maybe an option to temporary remove heavy graphics when you press play (depending on what scroll mode you have when pressing play)?
Still you would have to hide/add/remove different kind of graphics all the time, maybe this will clutter your basic tracking? Something tells me that this can take more time do adjust then just switch to a arranger window. But I’m not sure…
About multipatterns:
I forgot to tell you there is a thread about multipatterns vs clips. Its in the Some pattern ideas thread. The outcome of that thread lead to this one.
I can also see lots of good stuff coming out of a multipattern environment (that is playing multi patterns at once).
But you would then have to track more in a buzz tracker kinda way where you track each individual pattern on its own, and then mix the patterns togheter in another seperat mixer on top of the patterns internal mixer. One entire pattern will then go into one ‘sequencer track’ etc.
When I think of it there is a way you could include both methods (clips and patterns). That is if you could assign entire patterns into instruments.
This is described to details in the Rni future thread as ‘instrument-patterns’.
If you converted/imported or just made from the beginning your patterns into instrumnet-patterns, then you could just make a clip out of that single instrument that contains your instrument-pattern (you just play a singel long note from that instrument and make it into a clip). Then you will be sequencing entire patterns as clips. You could then drop/drap your clips from a list either directly into pattern editor (like your picture) or into an external clip arranger.
hum… if I find the time I could try to make a few sketches for this idea…
keep the discussion alive
cheers
Is there anything you guys haven’t discussed already before I found Renoise? 
Yes, the “fit exactly on top” idea wouldn’t work. Well, I just prefer vertical. True, you can’t view as much time without zooming out a lot. I guess this has already been throughly discussed.
I’m not so sure multipattern would force you to track like Buzz. All the tracks could be visible as now, I think, as long as you use the same amount of tracks as you would now. Like my sketch - Four patterns wide and a total of 7 tracks. With pattern sequencer minimized, it wouldn’t take up more space than now to show all seven. One thing I could use is the ability to have, say three patterns with 64 rows running along two patterns with 96 rows. Each pattern could contain any number of instruments/tracks. Nice for odd rythms and loops, which is a hassle atm. Something like this would be a top vote for me, before clips and instrument patterns (both great ideas as well tho).
Hi, just wondering what the status of this discussion is. I’d also very much like the option of having multiple patterns playing simultaneously, as this would cut down on a lot of tedious copy and paste operations in the pattern editor.
I guess a system akin to Orion or FL, only vertical instead of horizontal, is what I wish for. In fact, a pattern arranger as discussed here would quickly become very similar to FL. Not really a bad thing, just different.
Imagine having patterns of different lengths playing side by side, simultaneousy. E.g. a 32 line long drum pattern and a 128 line lead solo. You could use a system/GUI similar to the current pattern sequencer, only with several columns representing patterns playing side by side.
A quick mock up:
| 32| |128| | 64|
| 32| |…| |…|
| 32| |…| | 64|
| 32| |…| |…|
Where |32| = block/GUI representation with size relative to the pattern line lenght.
Is this what you have in mind? It would be nice if, as I believe someone has mentioned, this concept will extend to include song automation as well as the current pattern automation.
That’s exactly how it is in Buzz (and I presume a few other newer trackers?).
And theo, I think most will agree with you that Renoise lacks a good way of arranging patterns at the moment. Considering the progress Renoise has made already, who knows what’s at the horizon. 
I’m sorry I turned this into a pattern sequencer thread, since it’s mostly about the clip arranger. Some old stuff is about the sequencer tho, so maybe not way off topic?
I’ve just made a better visualization of my shot at a multipattern sequencer, speaks for it self really.
Not really like Buzz (I think, as I haven’t worked with Buzz), since you can see the patterns, and you could trigger a another pattern on any pattern-row you like (As a pattern command in the master track??). And a pattern could contain as many tracks/instruments as you like.
Edit: Added highlight in pattern sequencer, and some highlight in pattern editor after suggestion.
dby even. Sorry forgot to log in.
If you don’t use any additional pattern columns (or “track sets” perhaps?), it wouldn’t be any more confusing than today. And with a bit of work on the UI I think it would be pretty easy to grasp when you move around in it. - Maybe those expand arrows isn’t the way to go, some “add Track Set” button might be better? And you’d need a short cut to jump between track sets.
Yes, colours would be very nice.
Lets say you dimmed the leftmost pattern/trackset, the inactive one, and then have a hotkey that acted like tab, but for each trackset. Then it’d be a bit easier to navigate.
How about highlighting the selected trackset? I’ve edited the picture. I thought, since patterns before and after are already dimmed. The left one is also active and playing, but the cursor is at another trackset. Maybe it only needs highlighting when in edit mode?
How about control/tab, and contol/shift/tab for reverse? You can do reverse with one hand tho it’s a bit tricky, but you’d only need that if you use a lot of tracksets.