hi everybody !
Who can explain me the difference between “note off” and “smart note off” ???
I try both, but it seem to do the same thing to me …
Many thanx
bye
Try inserting two notes in one column, with some space between:
C-5
C-5
Now insert one off (doesn’t matter which you use):
C-5
off
C-5
Next try a “smart noteoff” above the first off:
C-5
off
- <- this off gets removed, since it’s not used anymore
C-5
There’s the difference. Keeps the pattern clean for you.
This doesn’t work across pattern boundaries though.
@martinal
How are you dealing with this issue in the pianoroll?
If you dont use ‘off’ in the pattern editor, you could end up with a endless note.
Maybe you could have an option to automatically inserting an ‘off’ if the note is more then x lines, or if the note gets very long it could only show a part of the beginning (and a symbol to show that this is a very long note) and a small part of the end with the symbol the other way.
This wont clutter everything, or force you to enter 'off’s all the time.
beginning
|
The pianoroll itself should handle noteoff’s completely automatic. In fact, it will
work in a way close to the “smart” noteoff, removing unused off’s automatically.
The pianoroll can only handle one pattern at a time, completely seperate from
the “outer world”… Within one pattern, a “very long note” can only be as long
as the pattern, but I was thinking about making some visual hint meaning
“this note continues past the pattern boundary” for notes lasting to the end.
I don’t see any way to solve the patternedge problem with the current song
structure, and in fact not even in the planned future structure that has been
discussed in this forum. But I have thought about a slightly different solution
for the later improvements to the song structure, which will make this problem
disappear. Basically: letting each note have it’s length stored as a property.
This doesn’t seem to match well with the tracker pattern, but I’ve found that
with some careful programming it should still be possible (and not at all that
difficult) to make a patterneditor that works like today. Of course with added
features and working seamlessly with the pianoroll.
Hmm… You’re thinking about not having to enter off’s in the patterneditor
and still be able to edit the pattern in the pianoroll like the notes are short
ones? What about a “drum mode” in the pianoroll? Which basically doesn’t
show lengths or use noteoffs, and behind the scene uses a fixed minimum
length a sample should play?
hmm… what if the note, for example is written on the last row of pattern 00, and you have this pattern sequence:
00
01
00
02
pattern 01 has the noteoff on its first row, while pattern 02 has it on its second row.
the note should have duration of 1 or 2 rows depending on which pattern follows…?? 
IN ztracker, you can setup a standar note lenght for each instrument, and you can also put the lenght of each notes directly in the pattern.
ztracker handle this very well, it souldn’ t be difficult to add this feature to renoise…
A new row for enter note lenght, its a good and powerfull solution… i think …
Look at ztracker …
so thanx for reply
bye
Exactly why editing notes crossing patternedges is hopeless to implement
on the current song structure. The changes I propose is for the future big
change of the patternstructure, together with removing speed and improving
the timebase, which will no matter how much effort we put into it introduce
slight backwards compatibility problems. It can’t be 100% compatible, so all
the planned changes that give compatibility problems should ideally be done
in one release.