Is there a discussion somewhere on how the current Pattern Matrix and the future Arranger will interact?
i’d like to bring this topic up again, because EHVAH DSC posted the same thing here, and because the stickied Arranger-thread is getting some attention again.
i just re-read some of the stuff said above, and still feel this could be a small but useful addition to the Pattern Matrix. i can see how this functionality might eventually be available through the envisioned arranger, or the envisioned clips system. but to be perfectly honest: these are still just ideas, and rather big ones at that. compared to quite a small feature like this, it seems strange to me to want to wait for a hypothetical feature that incorporates this one, instead of just going for the feature by itself.
disclaimer: (i am, of course, also aware that this goes for lots of other features, and that 1000 tiny features make up a single arranger (sort of), and also that Conner_Bw or whoever did not +1 this idea is not a developer and just speculating)
this and another topic crossing my mind lately.
why dont we get the possibility to change each track length independently?
technically, you could just hardsync the beginnning of each new (pattern-) track (or even with a editable offset).
the ending that overlap could be muted or played (user- choice).
why these static blocks of tracks that we call pattern?!
i think this question is more related to the threads about clips or the zoomable pattern editor, imo. this particular thread simply talks about a feature that adds in the patternlength inside the pattern matrix. your idea is much more elaborate (GUI-wise) than that.