[Done 2.7] Markers

Hi guys,

I’ve been given a try to renoise since a couple of days and I really liked it.

On the way home today, I was thinking about this. (Note : By searching the forum a bit to see if anyone came up with the same idea, I’ve noticed that “beat slicing” is a very sensible subject here… So keep in mind that I’m only making a suggestion and sharing an idea before throwing any sharp and shiny things at me.)

First, I really like the 09xx effect. Its somewhat unpredictable and imprecise nature is lovely. However, sometime, I would like more control. I know, I know, I can cut/paste parts of my sample and map it somewhere else on the keyboard… But I don’t want to do that. I want a precise 09xx effect, like go to 2544332th sample. Of course that’s not possible.

So I thought, why not add some markers on the sample (in the sample view), and have a command to go to those markers. so 0901 would go the the first marker, 09FF to the 256th marker.

I’ve noticed that command ids are running short, so maybe this alternate 09xx would only be active once you add a marker.

What do you think?

Edit : Allright, just saw the exact same idea on the second topics’ page. Lame me…

Already been requested tons of times.
It would be awesome.

Has been suggested a lot of times because it is a brilliant, brilliant idea.

They are not… or is there any reason GHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ couldn’t be used?

M for “marker” would be neat :D

yea “m” would be great, however, it’s not in the hexadecimal range ;)

Thanks for the fast replies :)

so? that restriction is from the ages where memory was scarce and/or the songs were stored in a binary file, instead of .xml documents ;)

hehe that’s true. I don’t know what’s better : old-school feel (and limitations) or superpower? hmmm …

Dude, you cannot seriously be pondering that for more than one millisecond.

We have 26 letters - let’s use them! For MAXIMUM “oldschool” feel… :P

The complete alphabet was never used to avoid confusion of these situations:

“Why can we have command M with value FF but not M with value G0? I need more than FF”

Having to work with the Hexadecimal system is already troublesome, even for those who quite understand it:
“Why do i always have to pick a calculator to translate my decimal CC value into a hex number? It’s cumbersome!”

Expanding the command system using the alphabet makes this system more complex and might put the learning curve too high for new users.

Imho i have no troubles with using the complete alphabet for commands but on the other hand i’ld rather see hexadecimal values slowly disappear and use commands that are shown in small icons rather than letters.
The latter has no more limitations (we just need another icon to add a command functionality) yet we can attach each icon to a key or keycombo.

the command set should use the full alphabet. this would make room for more pattern commands.
the hex limit on the other hand is a tricky thing. how would another way work?

I think the choice of hex was made based on several requirements:

  • easy to type
  • small visual footprint
  • mimic older trackers
  • easy to parse

For the developers, the last is probably the most important.
In the end, 0901 is really 2305 in decimal, or 0000 1001 0000 0001 in binary. In most (if not all) programming languages, there are some nifty operators to work with those numbers. For example, the “09” part of 0901 can be extracted like this :

0x0901 >> 8

That means take the hex 0901, shift all of its bits 8 positions to the right.

0000 1001 0000 0001
0000 0000 0000 1001

you end up with only the 09 part.


Representing commands with icons is a good idea for the user, but probably hard to parse and display. The dev would need to represent the icon being displayed in another way more meanful to them.

Also, alot of the command codes are reserved for parameter change of track dsp.

You. Gotta. Be. Kidding.


The routines won’t change, only the method to which they are linked get changed.
I doubt parsing an icon is a problem, the icon only represents what used to be the hexadecimal figure in the past, only the user sees the icon while the internal routine still says effect 09 is being used instead.
I think the user has to do all the adjustments.

You have no idea how many simple minds really exists in this world.
Even i get too tired or too drunk sometimes to think clearly.

Yes, but then, why bother displaying an icon if it doesn’t expand the number of commands?

You’re making a false assumption I think: when you enter an effect ID or an effect parameter, you already have the distinction in your mind. It’s like knowing “I’m turning a dial that has 7 positions”. When you have used that dial for 20 times, you don’t NEED any fancy markers to tell you that.

Consider making it noob friendly vs. making it long-time-use unfriendly!

Have you ever expanded that fx letters? Have thousands of people complained? Or is that just in your head?

You’d rather introduce symbols, because allowing fx id’s past f might confuse people? That’s kinda warped IMHO.

You misunderstand me. I know that… but if you want to get philosophical: if you adapt it to people being confused by false assumptions you’ll

a.) just enforce these assumptions for NO reason except that they’re there - instead of showing them something more logical and powerful which they can learn just as well…

b.) cripple Renoise.

NOT to mention “adapt it to the stupid”. You cannot possible have meant that… but hey: you have no idea how much those “simple minds” can learn and be if you let them, or even force them to… and how easily sharp minds can be dulled.

You can expand the command range when using the icon… The icon won’t take more space in the effect column, in the background the linked number can be 0090 instead of 09, i was just mentioning 09 to make a distinction between what the user sees in the pattern editor yet how the relationship is internally inside Renoise.
Ofcourse it would have no use for icons if the numbers won’t change so the numbers will have to turn into a larger extend to what it is now. When using icons or rather symbols, you can use more commands without having to define letters.
Symbols tell a lot more in less space than just a number.

Ofcourse we don’t want to say the program is for the low educated but it is desired to keep the learning curve as low as possible.

Those hex codes are the worst interface EVER. I mean really, it’s terrible.

Instead of all this hex crap, in the case of this request, shouldn’t it just be soemthing like M1 (for Marker 1). Why would you ever want to make something new and growing (like Renoise) use hex values for ANYTHING? Sure it’s an oldskool tracker thing. But lets keep the good things from “old school trackers” and scrap the crap. Hex codes go in the crap pile in my opinion.

For things on a sliding scale (like pitch bend and so forth) everything should be based on variables from 1 to 99 ideally. Not AF. Seriously - what is AF? I know that it’s somewhere after 99, but before B0. Too confusing!

Well I dunno. I’ve converted the 64 lines to 40 hexadecimal lines for instance, and it makes more sense, because music naturally divides in groups of two (Ideally though, it would be nice to have mixed base values (e.g. a group of 6 groups of 2 groups of 4 notes)). Also, FF is two digits, while 128 is three digits = more space required.

In summmary, keep the effect command values up to FF (until graphical icons come along maybe), but for the effect commands themselves, we need more than 16 (0-F) definitely! If anything it’s clearer because then people will see the effect type and effect value are two seperate entities. Otherwise they’re thinking “Oh, so both types go up to F”, and thus they’re more likely to conflate the two.

Like what other pattern commands? I can’t think of any other fx/commands to add that aren’t on this list. I mean, what else can you really do to a sample then all that?

Also, in the command “09xx”, you have another column (A9xx, B9xx, C9xx). So you can program the new effects under those commands, if you REALLY needed to.

Why do you want to complicate things even more by making another system. Right now, you can open MS calculator (or any scientific calc) and convert from dec to hex. If you throw in some new system with a base of whatever ridiculous value, how are you going to convert values now?

uh - sample markers?

That’s BS. xyyy is used for track dsps.

Huh? Nobody ever suggested changing the base for parameter values… what the F are you even talking about.