I know that taktik and the team are very thorough and meticulous in their design, so I thought I’d mention it.
but yes, I agree there are bigger issues - say global warming and oil shortage for example…
Not only the unlucky scale, but also the lack of minor ticks.
Oh no no.
When I say tick, I did not mean the ticks in between rows.
I mean major and minor ticks in a ruler, or scale.
Like in the image above (1st post) the grid lines with the numbers are considered major ticks and the grid lines without numbers - minor ticks.
EDIT: @vV - you must agree with me that the grid as shown above in the 256-row pattern does not make any sense, it does not help you at all, and in fact, it may even make matters worse - because it is confusing. The major grid line in the middle of that automation panel (138) is NOT the middle of the pattern. In fact, it is not anything. It is just another row, not worthy of being gridlined.
Yes, the 256 row pattern presented here does not make any sense indeed, it is not logic to devide 256 by a factor of 11 (because that is what was being done in this case) it could indeed have been devided by 8, 16, 32 or 64 which contains more logic.
But would you use 100% view for automation fine-tuning or just glancing the overall picture?
Not sure I follow your question, but in general - I rarely use the zoom feature.
My common pattern size is 256, and I do not need to zoom for accuracy, since I use the automation for sliding effect usually - fading out a volume, or sweeping a filter cutoff. So it does not really matter if I put the point at row 64 or row 65 - the result is the same.
Having the ability to zoom is of course important, but my personal use of the automation panel only requires the addition of a few points - usually at halves and quarters of a pattern.
Today, because the grid does not show me where the center and quarters are - I use F9-F12 to move the cursor in order to know where these points are (see the yellow line above - marks the center of the pattern in both cases).
Usually if someone uses a large patternsize, some effect do require some specific timings in between those areas. Specially if you use point node automation. At those cases you might need to change a node value every 8 or 16 rows or perhaps every 32 rows, but with 256 patterns this is even ackward if the division would be by correctly cut down by 8. If you don’t need that much precision, than cutting it on each 25% of the pattern would do i guess. But that’s why i asked (personal interest).
I see. Well, thanks for your interest and for clarifying the question.
When I need row-by-row precision, I try to use the command column instead of the automation (if possible) since it is much clearer - since you edit your row value right inside the row itself.
But when using point (non linear) automation, then zooming helps a lot of course.