I guess i’ve put on the cape of the interface guardian dude or whatever.
I don’t care what gets put into Renoise honestly, as long as it doesnt muddy the application. This pays into semantics, symbolism and flow of operation. When you make a crossroads between otherwise separate functionality, you better know wtf you’re doing, and this goes far beyond “making an in-between”. I get what you want, and it’s a good idea. But you should be leaving pattern effects far out of it. They operate by different rules than what you want, and coupling the two leads to an abstraction that’s inelegant and confusing.
What you want, as it appears to me, is a way to automate instrument envelopes, since automating retriggering, sample offset, reverse or any of the other one-shot effects simply makes no sense no matter which way i turn it.
We’ve wanted automatable instrument envelopes since forever, specifically in pitch shifting. This is nothing new.
If you can condense your concept, art and all, into a design that follows through rather than pose a “wouldn’t it be nice if” question without a solid foundation, at least i could picture it. I suppose i’m somewhat of a renoise traditionalist, but evolution in software should be incremental and goal oriented, not in dramatic steps without a clear line between the now and the then. It comes down to linguistics; incorporating a foreign word into your language is not something you simply do.
As a challenge, make me a compromise. Make something that fits into the way Renoise works right now without intrinsic functionality being altered.
In my case, i often have several breaks, up to the maximum channel polyphony, at the same time, having sample offset called on them on the same line. I’m not sure how your visualization would function in that aspect. Make me a visual example of what this would look like.
I’m intrigued, but i don’t see when or why i’d use it, not to mention HOW.