can’t wait to beta-test!
Hi Antic, I’m glad to see you around!
I’ve come up with the idea of ‘dynamic parameter’ linking, which will allow you to assign clip automation to parameters. But I honestly haven’t thought about effect commands, thanks for pointing that out!
I’d definitely prefer that effect commands were consistent with curves. So if we chose to stick with the dynamic model, clips could be playing in different tracks, and automatically re-assign automation data. In the same way, effect commands could rewritten on-the-fly. The clip would of course need to remember these settings per track, but that’s what dynamic linking is about.
We might be able to keep things simple, by allowing clips to reference only their own internal parameter list? In my screenshot, there’s two parameters assigned to the clip: cutoff and resonance. This might indicate that we are controlling a cutoff parameter, but actually, it’s just a name given to the automation data (since the curve was originally designed for controlling a filter). So we could assign the ‘cutoff’ parameter to whatever effect (reverb size) if we wanted to - and, simularly, reference the ‘cutoff’ parameter inside the clip editor using familiar hex notation.
What I have suggested is to split clips into categories.
-Note clips (notes and instrument number and other note column data)
- Automation clips, free curves/data that will be attached to a parameter in the arranger
- fx clips, all the data in the fx columns
((- and later audio clips, perhaps streamed clips ala audio tracks shown as waves))
I made a couple of pictures how this could work:
Pay attention to the top left buttons in the clip arranger window.
You see 4 buttons there.
- Show note clips
- show automation clips
- show fx clips
- Toggle - Edit clips layered
When 4 is enabled then any clip category not currently shown will also be
edited (copy/pasted/resized/etc).
So if you for instance set it to only see the note clip, then you will also edit the
hidden automation- and fx clips at one go.
In the header of the automation clip ‘arranger track’ you can add another device
parameter to be shown (you currently only see ‘Cutoff’ and ‘Reso’ from a filter or
something in this picture. You can also see there is a ‘node’ there so you can
expand/collapse to layer all automation/device parameters so you can edit all at once.
Another cool feature could be to be able to drag a bundled/layered clip back
into the list. This would then make a clip with a [+] in front of it. So you could
then keep clips layered all the time if you want.
We could have options to automatically keep for instance note-clips and fx-clips
always bundled etc as this heavily depends on individual workflow.
For the FX-clips I really cant see any easy solution. I don’t think there is nothing
we should do about it either.
If you use specific device commands there, then you should just leave those clips
out when arranging, or fix/edit the content of the clip manually after you have
moved it to another track. There is no point of reassign those commands to new
devices, I guess?
This is at least a very flexible and working way without big changes I guess.
A more drastic change is to restructure the command/column system so
that pattern commands pointing to devices will act like the automation does.
You have dedicated columns for each parameter. And the dedicated column
is linked to the automation (showing the same data).
That’s how it currently works, if you control a filter using 1010, 1014, 1020 …commands, and then decide to change the order of the DSP device in the chain, effect commands are maintained. Pretty cool, actually.
pysj : you don’t like the idea of dynamically linking automation parameters?
yawn
…
Byte-Smasher: if you are bored with this topic constantly popping up, please do us a favor and ignore it.
What I meant was that they are not synced (the automation and the pattern device fx, they work independent and do not represent the same data) and that fx columns are not dedicated like the automation is (only one type of parameter per fx column). But thats another long story…
I just posted the same second you wrote your last post here. Yes, we talk about the same. I also have dynamic automation clips that do not refer to a specific parameter. They are just curves… So it depends on where you put the automation data (into what ‘parameter-track’ like you see on my picture.
Then I just pointed out that this is not how the fx work (like you also did point out) 
And to make the fx work the same way as the automation work we could change them a bit using dedicated fx-columns instead of mixed fx columns.
If I get you right, you want the buzz kinda arranger?
So you can not see your data side by side? You have to individual edit a single pattern at a time.
Well… Thats a very controversial subject that was and still is discussed quite much.
The point of clips that is not a pattern, is to quickly rearrange data side by side in the current main pattern structure. Instead of copy/paste a billions times in tracks like you do today, you could just drag blocks of data around.
Perhaps not something you would like, but many others want this according to earlier ‘fights’ about this subject.
The thing with using instrument-patterns is that it allows you to do it the buzz way. You would not even have to open the clip arranger to use this. Just type inn a note in your main pattern and you are arranging patterns.
But who says the the one thing rule out the other? IMO the best thing is that you should be able to drag/drop anything into different parts of renoise.
So lets say you have a ‘project list’ with all the elements of you project (clips, instruments, sample pool, patterns (also song patterns) etc), then you drag drop from this list however like you want.
If you want to arrange purely with patterns, then you drag/drop a pattern from the list into the arranger.
If you like to arrange with note-clips, you just drag/drop those from the list. If you like to map it to a instrument to give it instrument-properties (clip or pattern or sample or whatever) you just drag/drop it to a instrument slot or directly into the key-mapper for the instrument etc.
Then you decide how you wanna do it…
What if I want a pattern on C-4 and another on D-4? A billion drop downs? No, seriously, why not a dropdown. But how about a [+] node in the instrument list where you can have a list of patterns, a list of samples etc, a tree structure of your instrument? Then you just drag/drop from other tree structures (another instrument, from the project list of patterns, from another song in the browser etc).
Then it is two ways to drag/drop things, using ‘copy’ function or a ‘shortcut’ function. Copy will make a unique individual element, while a shortcut is used to share elements.
Another problem is that you must make a clear difference between pointing to patterns outside (shared patterns) and internal patterns only for that specific instrument (same goes for instruments in instruments etc). And there is the ‘midi loop’ problem if you drag drop a shared patterns that contains the very same instrument you are making 
But sure. We should reuse all the elements that is already in Renoise. No need for fancy new editors. But the user must be aware of what he is editing then…
just my thoughts on this… (as a fairly new renoise/tracker user)
i would already be completely happy with the way buzz handles it’s ‘multi pattern playlist’ add to that ‘drag n drop’ and i’d be on cloud9.
perhaps there could be a vote about what people actually expect from any type of arranger ? because sometimes i get a feeling you guys take it way to deep while that might not be required to make most of the (future) users happier.
I don’t think that’s how it’s going to work.
This discussion will eventually lead to programmers programming on surprises behind closed doors. If they can’t pull it off, it won’t get done. If they have a clear idea, it will. This is an ideas thread. Kind of like a big (5 years?) stretching session before a marathon.
The loneliness of the long distance runner.
Excellent work with the flash mock-ups - I’m liking what I’m seeing, and seriously hoping I live to see the day when it’s implemented!
- lots&lots!
My personal opinion on the continuous editing mode is that it’s not a bad one, however, I also still think a simple ‘find & replace/masked editing’ feature would be more powerful.
This topic highlights it:
https://forum.renoise.com/t/masked-editing/18239
It would probably have to work a bit differently to work on a whole song basis (i.e. include the line number as part of the mask)
Forgive my naivety if this is something not do-able, or a bit too far off topic, it just crossed my mind when coming across your idea.
Really Really happy to see this is being adressed.
This is actually the number 1 reason why Renoise cannot be used to make Electro house at the moment. Also some more finetuned Grooves that are used in today’s DnB are also outside Renoises current capability.
Hmm… Perhaps I’ll still wait for some time and see if this gets an addition in renoise 
Would be so cool to make sharp beats in a tracker…!!! AWW!! Daydreaming
I’ve been thinking about switching totally back to Cubase, but to tell the truth that feels really horrible 
It is ok as a VST host besides renoise, but composing tracks + beats??!!! Argh 
Any news on when such an addition might be expected? Not meaning to rush or anything. (sorry) Just being anxious 
[quote="#<0x0000562853ca8e70>, post:106, topic:22259"]
This is actually the number 1 reason why Renoise cannot be used to make Electro house at the moment. Also some more finetuned Grooves that are used in today’s DnB are also outside Renoises current capability.
[/quote]
For a package “incapable” of producing electro house and more esoteric dnb, it sure gets used a hell of a lot for that exact purpose. Sounds to me like you need to get more creative with your tracking.</0x0000562853ca8e70>
[quote="#<0x000056285332fb50>, post:106, topic:22259"]
Really Really happy to see this is being adressed.
This is actually the number 1 reason why Renoise cannot be used to make Electro house at the moment. Also some more finetuned Grooves that are used in today’s DnB are also outside Renoises current capability.
[/quote]
Sounds like nonsense to my ears , could you explain in detail why you aren’t capable of producing electro house in renoise ?
Have you ever noticed that you can change the speedsetting? 
</0x000056285332fb50>
Agreed.
Renoise can do anything.
It might not be the best tool for the job in all cases but the limitations are with the user, not the application.
Doesn’t mean it can’t be improved, and I will not argue that other applications make some things easier, but electro house and dnb? Dude, look at work by Keith 303 for the electro/house and there are a bunch of signed DNB artists who use Renoise or some sort of tracker (ASC, Enduser, Soundmurderer, B-Complex, Breakage, … ) so I definately don’t concur.
…
[quote="#<0x0000562850feeb78>, post:110, topic:22259"]
…
[/quote]
Wow …great argument</0x0000562850feeb78>
Thanks. I thought so too…
Those two would be completely different things. Continuous editing is meant to solve some inherent problems with the workflow in a pattern-turned-arranger (drag/drop, for example). Not that I don’t like the idea, having search and replace in the first place would be pretty cool.
Found this old thread and i’m loving this design. Is it still on your “todo” list? Would be awesome. For basic drum or melody programming, low lpb are perfect. For timestretching and other crazy stuff, higher lpb values are needed. Zoomable pattern would give us both possibilities.