I don’t get it. There are two tools for piano rolls, why does it have to be built natively? What is the point of having the ability to make tools, if not for this?
2 Likes
Hardware accelerated Painting the Pianoroll with smooth zoom in/out, scaling and scrolling, better window handling. In few words, it will be more performant and better & quicker working with the a native version. Thats the point.
1 Like
True I get compiled c++ is going to run faster, but really of a magnitude faster that justifies going to the extra effort? I can’t honestly say I’ve not tried either of the tools to know what the user experience is really like, maybe it is that bad. Anyway I shoulda kept schtum and not got involved in this thread! I don’t need a piano roll haha
1 Like
In the end the fixing of the tools should be very easy to do. Mostly only method/property naming or class hierachy will change. Which tool exactly do you miss?
1 Like
Well, yes, but they still need to be done, and often they just won’t. Noodletrap is an example that comes to mind here.
Maybe it could be an interesting idea if Renoise was published under en open-source license using eg. the Street Performer Protocol, just like Blender? Meaning people put money in escrow and when certain threshold is met, the software is released as open-source and ultimately the whole world can participate in its development. I would certainly participate in something like that.
1 Like
I agree 100%. If I want a piano roll, I use FL Studio (which I often do). I would rather have taktik spending time, energy, and focus on adding powerful features like new DSP, adding more juice to the sampler engine, etc. People who don’t like trackers shouldn’t be using one. Those who want a tracker and piano roll in one program should install one of the few piano roll tools that are available right now. They’re really good.
1 Like
I do look forward to Renoise continuing development for decades to come, whether as closed or open source.
I can understand the idea here, and at first I sort of agreed too, but then I remembered taktik saying that Renoise gets big performance benefits from certain limitations (eg. tracks only being processed in order of left-to-right (can’t route audio to leftwards tracks)).
By incorporating a piano roll, not only could some tracker features not carry over very gracefully (limit of 12 note columns per track, note-offs, retrigger/cut commands, etc), but developing this piano roll might bog down a very streamlined, performant program.
All that said, if taktik were to ever add a piano roll, I’d be excited to use it. I see taktik as a very genius artist and architect, and feel that a lot of people’s ways of talking about what he should or shouldn’t do with his program, is a bit obnoxious and insulting to the amount of time, energy, and passion he has poured into this, providing perpetual licenses for less than $100 USD. If people want to have an attitude, they should take it to companies that charge them $800+ for the full version of their programs.
Also the comment about asking other DAWs to add tracker interfaces is hilarious. They have the time and money for it, ask them! Don’t hound the small company with a fraction of the budget and staff. One of the only companies that offers a modern tracker. If you want a piano roll so bad, why are you here exactly?
edit: to be clear; I have no problem with people politely suggesting a piano roll as a feature, especially when the Renoise team is open to suggestions. I just get annoyed at the way some people act as if they’re entitled to it, as if it’s unfair that it isn’t in the program. I can’t stand that type of attitude.
4 Likes
I’ll say a terrible thing, but lately the study of TidalCycles seems to me a much cooler and more visual innovation compared to your archival piano roll. dot 
Ok. Now they want TWO piano rolls. For stereo sound.
Why all antivirus programs detect Piano Roll like a virus?
implementing a pianoroll is certainly a huge logistical problem that would cost dev time. but when simply suggesting one is met with jeers and accusations of ‘spamming’, ‘complaining’, or hating the pattern-editor, or not knowing how to use Renoise, arguments of feasibility only go so far. the user-made PR tools work perfectly fine without bogging down the program and would fit into the interface nicely in the form of, for example, an extra tab alongside the edit/mix/sampler/etc. Those who don’t want to use it would never have to see it even once.
the momentous backlash at the mere idea of a PR is clearly because certain users just don’t like piano rolls and don’t want one to be included in “their” program. at the end of the day, a piano roll is just a different sequencer that works better for some things and worse for others. It displays note information in a different way to a tracker which can be useful during songwriting. I learned music by using trackers, and renoise pattern editor is IMO the best sequencer ever devised, and I use it a vast majority of the time, but when I want to use Simple Pianoroll for specific use cases, I am REALLY glad to have it. It’s an indispensable, if small, part of my workflow.
the simple fact is that to some users, the pattern editor is the ONLY way to use renoise, and any other way is to be looked down upon. It’s a stupid argument, the program could have both without ruining what’s already there.
Do not react to such limited people. It’s useless!