and true.
@vV
than it covers 50% of the trackeditor in renoise 3.0. in 2.8 it covers NOTHING, i still have had 100% of the trackeditor.
you can’t discuss a broken design idea to a good design idea, sorry.
its the same if i try (what i never do XD ) to deliver a shit music track to my client and start arguing if he says “its shit”. it never work ^^ and tell him “you just have to live with that what i deliver”.
you know the consequences (or maybe not). however, i’m out of this discussion and trying to support the new renoise design with helpfull threads.
all i got from devs is “live with it” or from childish pals “new is always better” and the best was a “go fuck yourself”.
Still moaning people?
Make music and beta test version 3, learn the new tricks with the gui changes like everybody else does.
Otherwise, just stick with 2.8 and move on.
3.0 is one of the best versions made. Period.
I followed renoise from version 1, and buy it at version 2.8
When played with it, i disliked the gui, very inconsistent if you work also in other daws. It was a mess, too much info on one screen, i even didnt have any fun in writing music in 2.8
But 3.0 changed all that and im asure that many new users will come aboard with this version, its now more proffesional than ever!
Thnx devs!
the new guys here on the forum ,which clearly all have a big mouth towards the long time renoise users …please stop it .
A lot of negative critisism comes from people who have used renoise for a long peroid of time ,I am not saying that we are any better or that we have more right to brag about something , but at least it is based on experience .
Biggest problem so far with the new release is the lay-out …which is evident from the picture above , there are numerous ways to improve …and that’s what we are all hoping for …every pixel counts …
So let’s brainstorm together …even if it takes ages for the first R.C. arrives…renoise should go gold when we all feel it’s perfect( impossible I know ) ,
First thing that comes to mind : the macro buttons can be smaller
I honestly don’t see the problem. 2.8 is as good as it ever will be, so nothing - I mean literally nothing at all - is stopping anybody from just sticking with 2.8. Or what is in 3.0b that you absolutely must have? It’s not like they added midi routing or audio tracks. You’ll even get phrases (albeit as a VST) once Redux comes.
3.0 has more features, especially in the instrument area, and needs to make those accessible. Just because you don’t use per-instrument effects, per-instrument modulation or macros doesn’t make the screen real estate allotted to that worthless. Add those areas to Gooze’s graphic and the score is perfectly even again, but 3.0 allows you to do so much more with the same screen real estate.
The UI is built like a tree now: Pattern and Mix are the trunk, and the other three tabs are the branches, with the instrument in particular branching out more on its own. That makes perfect workflow and UX sense and once you learn your way around it, I don’t see how it could be slower than the old UI. - Unless of course you don’t use any of the features offered by the ‘branches’, at which point you really should just stick to 2.8. (no relly, you should. it’s great.)
I’m totally with hotelsinus. To me, 2.8 was near perfect for what it was. 3.0 is leaving 2.8 on its pedestal but moving on. The UI changes were inevitable to accomodate the new features but 3.0. You can’t have one without the other.
That could be another solution for those willing to stick to 2.8 + redux.
in the current 3.0 beta 2 there is no spectrum analyzer or DSP pane in the Sampler tab which i think is on purpose. nevertheless, in which specific cases do you need the spectrum analyzer and DSP pane when editing the sample, defining keyzones and setting up modulation effects?
Nothing wrong with v3. Workflow is much faster now
@Mandulin: It is not some offhand idea I just came up with, it is the workflow I have derived over the years since I stopped editing samples in secondary programs and started doing all sample editing in renoise. I trust you know as many examples as I do where the pattern will merely be a single C4 note, most likely placed at line 00, for which editing inside the waveform makes more sense than trying to do the same in the pattern. Even for minuscule adjustments for one hits or drumkits I would probably want to do EQing, delaying and compression on a sample to sample basis and then bake the DSPs. Personally I find the spectrum analyser just as important as the audio monitoring when working with separate elements since it allows me to know the tonality and if they will work combined or cause conflict within a certain range.
Also since this is a view several users has voiced I find it a bore having to justify and I don’t see how it is relevant. People say their opinion on the interface because they are sincere in that is an issue for them. We are not trying to insult renoise or troll the forum. Renoise is wonderful and 3.0 is a milestone in many aspects, the new instrument system has added a ton of features I have dreamed about for a years, but this doesn’t mean that 3.0 doesn’t pose certain problems for some.
Beta 3 seems to have smoother graphics, or by Beta 3 you just get use to the new GUI? 
I’m not getting the same flicky effect on the instrument box. It seems way smoother now…
Something definitely seems better…
i would agree that the DSP effects in the Sampler view are useless if you don’t see the spectrum analyzer, unless you are using it for some minor stuff. i would have liked to be able to clean my samples in the Sampler view (by applying Filters/EQs and checking back with the spectrum analyzer) and then get in the Mixer for the proper mixing. that’s definitely a complaint that i think is legit for 3.0.
that said, the way i usually do it is by spreading my samples over multiple tracks, do some EQing, delaying, compression, etc. while soloing tracks, and then i group certain tracks if i need to apply effects on them as a whole. i always do this in the Mixer view and not the Sample view in 2.8. so with 3.0 nothing really changes for me.
This is my main reason why I suggested this, even though I was immediately scoffed off and told to “use a different DAW”. http://forum.renoise.com/index.php?app=forums&module=forums§ion=findpost&pid=271678
We already have tools that work with the API, but they’re not as integrated to the main GUI. The fact is that for the most part, Renoise is fine as it is from a base standpoint. It has been so since 2.1.
This is why I believe that instead of throwing all of these features into the main GUI, you could use the main GUI as a shell for graphical objects to work with the internal API via scripts. These scripts can then consist of anything that communicates with the API, and then there would be not as much fighting between “i only need 4 channels and 8 bit samples and these files don’t need to be more than 64 kb cuz i miss my amiga” and the “i use this seriously as a real production tool” crowds. In reality, all of this extra stuff should be as “tools” that can dock in the main window or taken out completely at the users discretion, perhaps even packaged up through modules loaded in the theme scripts.
This way, the few Renoise developers that work on the software could handle additions to the core API that handles all of the things that need low level work such as audio frameworks etc, and not have to worry about hard-coding new GUI features into the program that could be done (with current proof of concept) in the high level languages by the community that already comes with Renoise and already links to the programs API anyway.
Another thing… Where the heck is the groove sliders now?
groove sliders are now on master track
Hear, hear. “Maybe you should use a different DAW” is the standard response from the fools who see Renoise as their ‘religion’, and think that it cannot possibly be changed in any way. It’s just ridiculous - I think your ideas were excellent, binarycollective:
That sounds like a really good idea, the solution to everybody’s problem - after all, these are all just different ways of inserting DATA into a program, that is ALL they are. A piano roll, a tracker, a step sequencer, ALL they are doing is allowing us to enter the same data, in different ways, according to which we like best. Why do some people here see that as a threat? They are close minded idiots who couldn’t dream up a new interface if their lives depended on it, and would rather drag everybody else down to their level. They are actually AFRAID of thinking about new things.
Perhaps, but Binary started the provocation:
Don’t ever use these kind of expressions if you sincerely have all hopes aimed for it (and if you don’t want to be a target for other users for giving you the default “change DAW” workflow advise). 
well i think sometimes things must get a clear statement, even if theres a risk to provocate other users. its part of the game! pedagogy is not always the best way because polarisation can be lost very quickly. that leads to a “everyone is answering with a nod to everything”. do we really want that? but to tell things while to put someone a shotgun to the mouth is def. the wrong way hehe 
u cant really blame renoise devs for a small interface because if you buy a small laptop or monitor it is you choice! sure, the devs could put everything on tabs, so every part of the interface got its on page…but too much of it is counterproductive too. id suggest to get a bigger monitor then .)
I don’t really understand why this conversation has come to focus on the size of the monitor people are using. It’s not the point of the thread. A badly designed interface will still be bad on a huge screen. Size and scaling is not the issue at all.
Look at these examples of the browser, old vs new:
-
The old ‘top panel’ browser. Look how close the preset location buttons are to the type selector.
-
The new right-side browser. Look how far the same sets of controls are from one another.
-
The old style browser at full extension above the lower panel. This can become even larger if the lower panel is collapsed. It’s clear and roomy enough to browse through your drive comfortably. The preset buttons are in the same place. Very simple and usable.
-
The new style browser at full extension. It is much smaller in comparison, more cluttered, and the buttons are still distant from one another.
If the rationale for this redesign is that the new browser makes it easy to browse through large sample libraries, i have to say it is a huge failure. The vertical viewing space is severely reduced overall and it is less comfortable to use in general. If you scale these examples up to fit on a larger screen the old style browser doesn’t change at all, everything is still close together and accessible. If you do the same with the new browser then the buttons just get further away from one another and there are no significant usability improvements gained from having more pixels. It’s a nonsense to be going on about screen size when the issue is the design, not end-user monitor choice.
i for one didn’t like the old style browser. It was clumpsy and too small. i agree with you that space is wasted with the new one, but it’s much better working with it IMO! more PRO. 
hmyes at least it should be possible to make sections bigger or smaller. but for the browser window…you can simply put it off if you dont need it! and…you can resize it for your needs? what else do you want? i dont get it!
This isn’t just about the browser either…
I give up.
This internet rubbish is so bloody frustrating.
Somebody close or delete this thread please. No use trying to make a rational discussion here which is what i had intended this to be.