This is just something that’s an old expectation from fasttracker days -
It’s a little limiting that you only have the choice between wrap and go to previous/next pattern when editing a pattern.
Many times I want to arrow allll the way to the end of a pattern but it’s annoying that you then wrap back up if you don’t stop in time… It’s like you have to pussy foot it when arrowing down to the bottom of a pattern. Personally I never set this toggle to go to the next pattern - that’s what ctrl+arrow up/down is for, but I’m sure there are plenty of people who will fail to see the benefit of offering an option to stop, do not wrap, do not pass go. (to each their own I guess is what I’m saying!)
Say I want to arrow all the way up to the first tick of a pattern (and im on a laptop with no home key).
I’ll certainly be bringing this up again in a few weeks if it isn’t grabbed - rumor has it there will be a beta thread coming soon
i get your point, though i’ve never needed this myself. to go to the first pattern-line, press F9. to go to the last one, press F9 and up (once). simple as that.
yeah no. yet another keyboard binding is not what I’m looking for. This pussy footing also comes into play when programming effects/vol/pan… if you dont let go in time you wrap to the beginning of the pattern. The depths of this request do not stop with “i want to get to the bottom of the pattern” it’s what to do once you’ve hit the bottom of the pattern.
wow. I wasn’t expecting such bitter response to this suggestion.
I think you’ve read too many Edward Tufte books. Powerful and useful applications require interface elements. Get over it. If we wanted a minimal interface we wouldn’t be using renoise.
This area of the screen is hardly pressed for screen real-estate, but if adding 40 pixels to the bar below the pattern editor to replace the otherwise illegible toggle icon with a combobox is turning renoise into the homermobile then you could turn the 2 state button into a 3 state icon and call it a day. it’s more a set-it and forget it type preference anyway.
I asked about this in #renoise and I must have been in there with a handful of like-minded users who actually use the program, cause they were all for the idea.
you have to take Conner with a grain of salt now and then. he offends easily, so it seems, but is not that ill-willed. let’s instead discuss why some of the other options are not good enough for you?
as it seems to me, your workflow consists of holding down a button (either the down-arrow or a note-button or something else), making Renoise skip through the pattern real fast. you want to stop at the final line, but the skipping is so fast that you go past it. there are alternative methods of getting to the final line. one pointed out by dblue (assign keyboard shortcut), the other pointed out by me and kazakore (F9+Up-arrow). i think if we’re talking about methods of reaching the final line fast, these methods are a lot faster than starting somewhere in the pattern and holding the down-arrow. so not sure why you would turn these down.
there is only one thing i can think of for turning these down, and that is that your goal is not to reach the final line, but to fill a pattern with a certain note/parameter/whatever value through holding down the button. i see how you would often over-shoot the final line if you do that. if this is indeed the case, is the thing you are filling the pattern with always the same value? i think it has to if you fill it by continuously holding down a button. and if it is, wouldn’t it be way easier to input the value once, select it, press Ctrl+C to copy and Ctrl+P to fill out the pattern?
so, which situation is it? are we missing something here? and why are the options provided in both situations not enough for you? i mean, the functionality to do what you want is there, but will you insist on doing it another way? wouldn’t this proposed new functionality be a bit over the top?
please invite them to chime in here as well then. and i think lots of people replying here use Renoise as well, but they are simply not those like-minded people. it is a matter of coincidence, imo.
Pussy foot, illegible icon, read too many Edward Tufte, users who actually use the program…
Homer mobile is a syndrome, not a result. I didn’t mean to imply this was turning the app into the homer mobile. Rather your feature request leaves a lot to be desired in implementation details.
Buried in your verbosity is " 3 state icon". Well, I personally didn’t think of that. Sounds good to me. 3-state icon is a solution.
For the record, I’m often in IRC. Does that make me a “real user” now?
yes, I adjust the edit step if needed/desired then enter my values… or hold down delete if I’m wanting to delete values. I don’t think Ive ever desired the wrap pattern while editing toggle state… but that’s entirely subjective.
^ well, if that is the case, Ctrl+C & Ctrl+P would work, right? this would just fill the pattern. for deletion you could do the same with an empty line.
i suppose this is just a workflow-thing. the people who work by holding down buttons to fill/empty patterns are going to want this, the people who use keyboard-shortcuts will not be as interested.
I actually agree with the feature request, but as others pointed out there’s already a bunch of ways to do it. I also sort of misunderstood pussy foot to mean something along the lines of you’re all a bunch of pussies, or something, hence my attempt at humour about podiatry.
Mostly, I didn’t want to see another button in the interface.
“No wrap” is, in my opinion, a reasonable 3rd option to “wrap pattern” and “wrap sequence.”
Im getting what you’re suggesting but, sorry, no. selecting and copying and pasting is more cumbersome then pressing and holding a button, imho.
Moreover I can’t think of a single time I would ever want either of the two existing options - loop pattern or continue to next pattern. If I wanted to go to the start after hitting the end I’d just simply hit one of the shortcuts you guys have mentioned. If I wanted to go to the next pattern I’d just hit ctrl+arrow.
i must admit, re-reading my post i think my proposition goes a long way but you had me struggling at the part where you use edit-step. it can be done through my method but it is not that easy or intuitive anymore. i suppose in such a case your suggestion would make more sense to me. so +1 for you!
still hoping all the guys from IRC are going to contribute something here. the more voices the merrier.
You are on your own on this one here, many users picked Renoise because of the minimalistic interface. To keep these things minimalistic, is also the main goal developers try to maintain here.
Ofcourse, some executions are not really practical (Like the instrument envelopes) but these things are discussed and worked out.
Conner simply asked you a solution that doesn’t involve clutter.
Agreed. Renoise is very minimal compared to many other DAW’s UI and it has always been one of the main aims when new features are implemented. Saying “if we wanted a minimal interface we wouldn’t be using renoise” is pure nonsense!
Personally I don’t like three state toggle buttons…
