Enjoy! 
Oh sorry, I misread… Keep on filling Taktik’s brain with useful ideas!
Oh sorry, I misread… Keep on filling Taktik’s brain with useful ideas!
TBH, taktik probably already has thought out the most useful ideas… among thousands of them.
He just doesn’t have the time required to realize them.
And we, as users, don’t have a clue what’s going on… or even if anything is actually going on…
I personally find it unfortunate that the Renoise developers have so little faith in the users that they feel the need to hide every tiny bit of information about development. Especially BECAUSE it’s such a niche product backed by passionate users; it would have felt even better with a little more open atmosphere where at least those users who had proven to be constructive and reasonable over a period of time (say 1-2 years) could get reading access to thealpha-testers’ subforum here (which is hidden unless you’re an alpha tester) and required to STFU in regard tothat information.
Somebody could now suggest that my preferences in this area (i.e. more open communication about the process towards the next beta) proves that I can’t handle the current situation, accept itandlive with it. But you see, I can handle it just fine. It’s just a preference, it’s not like I’m saying that Renoise devs are wrong. I just find it to be a very strange and counter-intuitive situation, based on the fact that most users seem to be very reasonable people. If some new feature is being worked on and turns out to be put aside by the devs somewhere further down the road because ofwhatever reason, most people would simply say OK and then leave it at that.
Again, and I’ve stated this preference in many threads before, let’s hope that taktik just says “oh well, to hell with the 2%cry-babies and 1% lunatics and 2% constant whiners…let’shavethe95% majorityat least knowa bit about where we as devs intend to go with this product, and what’s realistic and unrealistic tohope for…”.
TBH, taktik probably already has thought out the most useful ideas… among thousands of them.
He just doesn’t have the time required to realize them.
And we, as users, don’t have a clue what’s going on… or even if anything is actually going on…
I personally find it unfortunate that the Renoise developers have so little faith in the users that they feel the need to hide every tiny bit of information about development. Especially BECAUSE it’s such a niche product backed by passionate users; it would have felt even better with a little more open atmosphere where at least those users who had proven to be constructive and reasonable over a period of time (say 1-2 years) could get reading access to thealpha-testers’ subforum here (which is hidden unless you’re an alpha tester) and required to STFU in regard tothat information.
Somebody could now suggest that my preferences in this area (i.e. more open communication about the process towards the next beta) proves that I can’t handle the current situation, accept itandlive with it. But you see, I can handle it just fine. It’s just a preference, it’s not like I’m saying that Renoise devs are wrong. I just find it to be a very strange and counter-intuitive situation, based on the fact that most users seem to be very reasonable people. If some new feature is being worked on and turns out to be put aside by the devs somewhere further down the road because ofwhatever reason, most people would simply say OK and then leave it at that.
Again, and I’ve stated this preference in many threads before, let’s hope that taktik just says “oh well, to hell with the 2%cry-babies and 1% lunatics and 2% constant whiners…let’shavethe95% majorityat least knowa bit about where we as devs intend to go with this product, and what’s realistic and unrealistic tohope for…”.
Hi Fsus4, how are you?
I think this issue is not the place to discuss that.We discuss possible solutions on specific things, without putting to developers in the midst of the discussion. It is not necessary every time an idea comes with some visits.
I also have wanted to answer ffx on the issue of taktik.But really, is not the way.
We as Renoise users, can contribute ideas, because we love this software.Renoise Team with taktik to the head, they will do what they wish with their software.And nobody in this forum do not even throw them has the right to criticize. Nobody likes to receive orders about something that is not theirs.They know how to take care of their nest and how to satisfy users, and whether they should be happy to users who have purchased Renoise or those who have not yet done so, or both.
This is understandable when you create something great.If you create a program, you keep a small team over the years, you keep doing with him whatever you want!!!
I guess not report in the forum because there is nothing to report. And if any, shall be informed when it is secured, possibly in the release of a new beta.Unfortunately, there is a phrase in the presentation of version 3.1 which reads: "We have squeezed in a few long-requested features too, in an attempt to make Renoise 3.1 the best possible release."This is just pure marketing. They know they can improve many things still Renoise before adding things or new tools, Some areas are caught with pin (Automation Editor, Keyzones, Matrix Editor inclusive, and others…),that they are implemented in a basic way to work, nothing more; the best example is the Automation Editor. In most cases they have to do with graphic design and the lack of some basic functions.
But you can complain, and look at the view of the Renoise Team or taktik, or try to bring something to the user community, as if the Renoise Team not exist.The reality is bleak. I know it.This forum is empty!Most visitors are not even registered!People who can not even download nothing!!! is June, is summer!
I am aware that most of my contributions are ignored by the Renoise Team,but that does not matter because everything you do, is permanent in forum.Maybe in a while, the team Renoise regret not implement certain things, miss the opportunity. But much of the blame lies with the user community, who are not able to convince each other. There is no consensus nowhere!
For me, it is not normal that a contribution such this subject, has had four votes of stars, and is at level 2. The forum comes people to destroy, not to contribute. If you do not like, do not vote!They are proud to be contrary, because they think they are doing a pulse or something, and all I get is throw shit up. For my, all this topic that I opened, has paved the way to create a “stupid LUA script” to solve one of my problems in the composition (sort the notes per octaves).And that was thanks to forum members, not Renoise Team.I owe it to them.Stop obsessing Renoise Team or taktik.Try to bring to the user community to help each other on what you like, and do not take shit that you do not like…
Danoise, DBlue and others continue to help in the forum. Joule, for me, has proven to be one of the best members of the forum, because it helps others selflessly, without throwing shit through.If there were more people like that, things would be otherwise.So, yes, we can be all year discussing this nonsense. But I want a fucking tool to solve my problems! 
Sorry!!! 
…
I personally find it unfortunate that the Renoise developers have so little faith in the users that they feel the need to hide every tiny bit of information about development. Especially BECAUSE it’s such a niche product backed by passionate users; it would have felt even better with a little more open atmosphere where at least those users who had proven to be constructive and reasonable over a period of time (say 1-2 years) could get reading access to thealpha-testers’ subforum here (which is hidden unless you’re an alpha tester) and required to STFU in regard tothat information.
…
I totally agree!But maybe he wants to have full control over your product, and it is your right…I’d rather not talk Renoise Team.Let’s talk about Renoise! 
Hi Raul, I’m fine thank you.
It’s notmy intention to hijack the thread. Just wanted to point outthat"filling taktik’s brain with useful ideas" isn’ttheroad forward to implement new features.He is probably already overloaded with a gazillion of useful ideas, but simply lacks the means (time, etc) to realize them. Not sayingit’s awaste of breath for users to keep pouring outideas for improvement. Sometimes it’sthe small finetuning that makes a bigdifference, and the devs do have atrack record forlistening to user experiences in such areas of improvement.
The pianoroll concept however… is somewhat a different story. But OK, let’s not talk teams and visions but instead focus on the product in its current state. While the pianoroll issue _prima facie_is about finetuning the visualisation of notes and harmonies, I think the real issue here is: shiftingsensory activity from ears to eyes.Visualising and editing notes graphically rather than alphanumerically introduces a can of worms that dig into the Renoise core and the essence of tracking itself. That’s whywe’ll walk in circles while avoiding totalk product visions (or the lack thereof).
Now my own preferred “solution” tothese issues would be: Renoise having a full C++ API thatwould allowthird parties todo stuff in Renoise that isn’t possible with Lua scripting.You know, not only codingnew modular DSP fx devices and synths,but also makingit possible tocompletely redesign the pattern editor and hook itup withstuff like pianorolls,linear arrangers, audio editors and score notation (sheet music notes).
Hi Fsus4.
In part it is normal that there are many people proposing ideas continuously.That is a symptom that are not completely satisfied with Renoise.If you look Renoise from a general point of view, you will notice accounts that many areas are still basic, bare minimum to work, without any frills. However, some things work not fine still.On the other hand, the lack of time is also a cheap excuse.I think not add some basic functions, some very demanded by usaurios are not of great effort for experienced programmers.If the end are not included, the cause is not wanting.
The tools with LUA language, for what I’m seeing lately is very limited time to add really useful features.In fact, some features may not work properly, and are “hidden”.This usually happens in whatever programming.
Now my own preferred “solution” tothese issues would be: Renoise having a full C++ API thatwould allowthird parties todo stuff in Renoise that isn’t possible with Lua scripting.You know, not only codingnew modular DSP fx devices and synths,but also makingit possible tocompletely redesign the pattern editor and hook itup withstuff like pianorolls,linear arrangers, audio editors and score notation (sheet music notes).
In reality this could be a disaster.I do not think there are many users on these forums able to create really useful tools, by the very ability of their knowledge, as well as the limitations of programation language ofRenoise.Check out the tools section.Some are mere patches of options that should be integrated Renoise (or not).Simple short scripts.A few are more sophisticated, but the great mass of users Renoise sure to ignore.I speak of really useful utilities that use all composers of Renoise.
I would like to Renoise had all the integrated tools, and not have to install anything else, unless you have a clear support (even including installation instructions and use).The more you know Renoise management and do a little research LUA language, you realize it.In fact, the tools or scripts of LUA for Renoise are like having access only to the rear wheel of your car.No access or screws that support it.In fact there is a huge lack of companionship when creating code in these forums.I mean raise 3 or 4 persons and say, let’s create this and we will do together, simply because one of them requires the tool…
In summary,most tools seem a customization of each creator user, and few users will actually use.Having some control Renoise API (a chunk under the hood),would be great.But who would schedule?If Renoise Team refine their software (refine what already includes,adding the basic functions also),perhaps there would be some brave personto think: ok, worth investing my free time to support, because the issue would be more serious and dependable.
In other words, people are disenchanted.Most people want a powerful and complete and fine software and leave “the rubbish” aside, without basic editors,created to muddle through. For example, the Automation Editor is “a pre-beta” inside Renoise and very cumbersome; Keyzones is similar, work areas with few options, and very basic. The instrument box does not allow order the instruments per groups (you have to use a slot name. What?), The philosophy is that, just and necessary, little more…If there are, exist a user is going to invest their time in perfecting a tool?
Renoise GUI is also poor in some places.You can save a theme XRNC, but not as basic as options to save a particular level of intensity of the colors of the tracks/groups, let alone differentiate between tracks and groups. Renoise not exploit the colors. And the details follow.Details that members of the forum can not solve (because Renoise is closed) and see desert on the horizon. Open the API, people are disoriented and Renoise Team also, because they must support these users to schedule, and therefore use your time.I do not think may open the API access.It’s protected with padlock on purpose. Logical. Most unfortunate: we can not ask for more for such a cheap program.
The only thing possible is to send a formal email to the support Renoise and ask.They kindly answer you…
I do not think there are many users on these forums able to create really useful tools, by the very ability of their knowledge, as well as the limitations of programation language ofRenoise.Check out the tools section.Some are mere patches of options that should be integrated Renoise (or not).Simple short scripts.A few are more sophisticated, but the great mass of users Renoise sure to ignore.I speak of really useful utilities that use all composers of Renoise.
You can’t extrapolatemuch from forum activity, unfortunately.These forums do not equal nor mirror the majority of registered Renoise users. In reality, I’d estimate there are quite many users off these forums who’re able to createuseful tools for themselves. That they aren’t interested in publishing their customized stuff isa completely different story.
The main point in having aC++ API would be for devs to say “hey look, we now give you even more powerful custom options to tailor Renoise according to your specific needs, sothat you canactually build that piano rollor DSP fx you always wanted”. This would, of course, be a completely different thing than scripting. More dangerous, more powerful.
Oh well. Time will tell where the Renoise project will end. But probably one reason you won’t see much forum activity from users is precisely because updates and new releases usually takes 1-2 years in between. Add to thatthe total radiosilence from developers on everything and anything related to development, visions, directions, whatever. As a user, you’ll stand there thinking “OK, so now we have Renoise 3.1 final out,come back in 1-2 years andcheck forRenoise 3.2 beta testing starts”.
And in the meantime, when somebody tries to write anything even remotely serious on the forums, the thread willget trashed by lolcat hooligans anyway. So there’s little incentive to actually be around these forums at all. Actually, I’ll probably also decrease my activity hereand justmonitor for news.
Thank heavens for ReWire and Redux.
You can’t extrapolatemuch from forum activity, unfortunately.These forums do not equal nor mirror the majority of registered Renoise users. In reality, I’d estimate there are quite many users off these forums who’re able to createuseful tools for themselves. That they aren’t interested in publishing their customized stuff isa completely different story.
The main point in having aC++ API would be for devs to say “hey look, we now give you even more powerful custom options to tailor Renoise according to your specific needs, sothat you canactually build that piano rollor DSP fx you always wanted”. This would, of course, be a completely different thing than scripting. More dangerous, more powerful.
Oh well. Time will tell where the Renoise project will end. But probably one reason you won’t see much forum activity from users is precisely because updates and new releases usually takes 1-2 years in between. Add to thatthe total radiosilence from developers on everything and anything related to development, visions, directions, whatever. As a user, you’ll stand there thinking “OK, so now we have Renoise 3.1 final out,come back in 1-2 years andcheck forRenoise 3.2 beta testing starts”.
And in the meantime, when somebody tries to write anything even remotely serious on the forums, the thread willget trashed by lolcat hooligans anyway. So there’s little incentive to actually be around these forums at all. Actually, I’ll probably also decrease my activity hereand justmonitor for news.
Thank heavens for ReWire and Redux.
Totally agree.This is an excellent analysis of the current situation.You’ve hit the nail!
- Desert on the horizon for lack of information in the immediate future.Many people complain of not knowing the immediate future of Renoise.Too long between releases… The disenchanted people.
- Lack of greater power (open the API) to create really useful things that most calls, as the simple idea of this topic: “a simple graphic pianoroll” integred in Pattern Editor, very simple(place notes, modify duration and little more).Or other heavier options for complete pianoroll.
“OK, so now we have Renoise 3.1 final out,come back in 1-2 years andcheck forRenoise 3.2 beta testing starts”.
Just heartbreaking! 
I do not have many years in forum as a registered user.But I understand that people are disenchanted, or conformist, because it can not do anything but wait.It is what it is.
Anyway, the situation is also understandable from the closed code.Open is dangerous and delicate for the issue of stability and performance also.Personally, if I were the owner of the code, not would open, quite we have with LUA.As I am a user, I want the open API.Dilemma!
Users can only show the Renoise Team them wrong on something, and that Renoise can be much more adding this or another thing.They decide and maintain the control.
Finally, I would rather forget pessimism, and do not write these things in the forums when the desert is seen,and is a string… Better to try to bring something and leave complaints aside, because the forum is full of them.Enjoy what we have and be constructive. Now goodnot allowing the existence a single bug. Open the API = more bugs???The issue is very delicate…
Well, since taktik has been the lead developer of Renoise for almost 16 years now (he started in December 2000 andwith the Noisetrekker code), we can only hope that he is actually still enjoying it.
However. As I understand the situation, one crucial reason it took almost two years (December 2013 to October 2015) to finish the 3.0 to 3.1 release,was the increased complexity to managethecodeas a whole. This complexityfactor seems togrow worse foreverynewer Renoise version. So it would be somewhat refreshing if the devs actuallycarved out the pattern editor and made it into a new VST (or an enhanced version of Redux). That way we could have the Renoisetracking experience of VST instruments inside other DAWs.
Lots of Renoise users would probably be very happy with such progressivescenario!
However. As I understand the situation, one crucial reason it took almost two years (December 2013 to October 2015) to finish the 3.0 to 3.1 release,was the increased complexity to managethecodeas a whole…
Not is rather becauseneed more time just to include Redux and add the same new functions to Renoise?Perhaps the cause is the addition of Redux VST/AU, and not so much the difficulty of the code.If changing the complete GUI to a vectorial or something similar for high resolutions, then it is possible that the code was more laborious.So yes it would be worth waiting so long.People using Renoise main DAW, Redux always see in a second plane, something not required.
In my opinion, I would have preferred more refinement of Renoise, rather than including Redux.Focus all efforts on the Renoise DAW that it can improve a lot yet, simply adding useful little things here and there,and completing each type of editor (automation, keyzones, pattern editor, matrix…).Add Redux involves moving away from Renoise, and I do not like.
Question in the air: do you prefer a Redux, or Renoise with vectorial GUI and pave the way to perfect more?How to use the time?
What’s a piano roll ?
What’s a piano roll ?
6804 
Question in the air: do you prefer a Redux, or Renoise with vectorial GUI and pave the way to perfect more?How to use the time?
I would prefer to have tracker capabilities inside of conventional DAWs, yes. Redux is all good for that sample-mangling-sequencing stuff that is so essential for trackers. It’s a great step in the right direction, butwhy stop there? The ideal for me would be to also have a VST mini-host tracker/instrument that could host other VST instruments as well.It would be super cool to have a Redux 2.0 thatcould also load and layer VST instruments and effects together with samples (just like Renoise already can), combined with the phrases stuff (absolutely brilliant). That waywe could build pretty complex and huge patches in Redux.
Also I’d like to see a new meta-Redux plugin, a wrapper/loader for multiple Reduxes if you will. One super-instrument, that triggered and synced multiple phrases from different Redux instances (so that you could builda library of Band in a box-like super-phrases and styles). Remember the Steinberg XPhraze plugin?
However. I would certainly like toseeRenoise updated as a DAW if it didn’t take 1-2 years between point releases combined with total radio silence, as I’ve said earlier. Renoise is an excellent tool for what it’s supposed to do, but for _most things_required forproduction, post-production and editingby today’s professional standards and demands,I really think the established top DAWs out there do a far better job. And there’s no chance whatsoever that Renoise is ever going to catch up.
A Redux 2.0 with VST and VSTi capabilities (i.e. being a VST tracker mini-host with Renoise’s pattern editor, phrases, sample layering, etc) would totally rock. Even if it would cost something like $999 I wouldn’t hesitate a second tobuy it. Yes, I would even go so far as to say that if it was a choice between devs putting resources into Redux or Renoise, I’d prefer if they prioritized Redux any day. How the developers choose to spend their time, however,well that’s up to them. Naturally.I just hope that they see more potential in Redux and decide to explore the possibilities further. Since dblue is also a Redux developer (as I understand it anyway), maybe he’s willing to integrate Glitch stuff in a future version of Redux as well?
In the case of having little time, which is that what we’re talking,I think it’s better to focus on Renoise and perfect it.I have discussed above.Divide the job is to kill Renoise, because the short time available, you lose something else.The appearance of Redux seems an exercise to get more money, simply.But entering risk paralyzing the development of Renoise.
It’s a chain.If the most faithful Renoise community is not happy, people outside will see what a pretty effective way that people do not buy Renoise.It is bad indirect advertising.Redux can serve people who do not use Renoise.I’m afraid now, for wanting to keep two productseverything will be much slower.Obviously, Redux will have a new version in the future,otherwise it is symptomatic of a failure.But if the theme is time, better not waste it.
A good example is the Sampler section in Renoise.Initially it was basic to muddle throughand it has gradually improved in new versions.
In short, let the crap aside and perfect Renoise, bluntly.Renoise is a “full” DAW already. You can make all processes of production and postproduction seriously, missing only perfect it with courage and not settle for the philosophy of “muddling through”.Another issue is that DAW use the professional composersit has more to do with the format what with the DAW itself.Renoise plays in another league.No need to use another DAW to compose. With Renoise you can make up almost anything, less dependent on the post-production and mastering of others…
Is possible they are not getting the money needed to continue forward.I mean in the last 2 years.Maybe that’s why born Redux, the search of another niche. If this get more funding to support Renoise, is welcome.The problem is whether Renoise developers believe they have already peaked with this software.It’s a bad feeling!
A billionaire come and buy Renoise rights and impulse with large bills, creating a Renoise 4 (not 3.2) grandiose, detailed, polishedand more accessible to the faithful user community.Or, get together with other developers with money and desire.We will see PR, audio tracks with waves, GUI vectorial as it should beand more, more options, with sufficient time to develop Redux also.If the problem is time, the answer is to invest in Renoise, of course.
Yes, I believe the devs stated somewhere explicit after 3.0 beta started that Redux was a probe intoa new market. Of course, I totally applauded that decision, and I think there were only a few tracker punditswith a mindset stuck in 1989 that didn’t approve of that brave move. Fact: the market for Renoiseis extremely limited.Fact: A lot of consumers on thatextremely limited markethave a worldview thatideally they shouldn’t really have to pay for anything which is software. Conclusion:The profit margin for trackermanufacturers are close to zero.
Now I kind of see the Renoise/Redux relation as similar to Kontakt and Kontakt Player. You can build your Redux patches more easily within the richer editing environment of Renoise (Kontakt), then load it up within the Redux instrument (Kontakt player) inside your conventional DAW over at the studio.And that’s what I’d actually prefer for Renoise to be in the future: an advancedRedux library editor and (legacy) tracker DAW.
This wouldbe my preferred description of a Redux 2.0 and Renoise 4.0:
NEW IN REDUX 2.0:
+VST support: Now Redux can load both VST effects and instruments, just like you can in Renoise.
- Extended pattern editor: Now Redux offers Renoise’s magnificenttracker pattern editorto any DAW environment.
+Play phrases from multiple tracks and instruments: Trigger an entire band with a single keystroke
+Layered instruments: Combine your favorite VST instruments with samples, build complex phrases and patterns
+MIDI FX inserts and routing: Drive VSTsthrough other VSTs.
NEW IN RENOISE 4.0:
-
C++ API for providing even more freedom to users to customize Renoise according to their preferences and needs
-
Piano rollstarter (open sourceC++ SDK)
-
Advanced integrated Redux library builder
+Render phrases from multiple tracks and instruments
- Audio tracks
In any case, if time is the main issue, I’d rather see they spent that limited time on making a tracker VST so that people could combine the best of two worlds in their music production (tracker composing/editing style and modern DAW features). Redux 2.0 FTW!!!
Hey, I thought you guys were talking pianorolls? 
Also I’d like to see a new meta-Redux plugin, a wrapper/loader for multiple Reduxes if you will. One super-instrument, that triggered and synced multiple phrases from different Redux instances (so that you could builda library of Band in a box-like super-phrases and styles). Remember the Steinberg XPhraze plugin?
Yes indeed, the fact that Redux isn’t able to host plugins was a disappointment to a lot of people. I think the reasoning behind it is fair enough (let the thing do what it does best: work with samples), but I would have liked to see this feature appear in v1.0 as well.
But, speaking of building a library of phrases, I have actually picked up my PhraseMate tool because I wanted to finally add something I’ve missed for a long time: the ability to, quickly and easily, capture phrases from an entire song. This would be very very handy if you’re using both Renoise and Redux, but your mates are using something else. Also, for remixes and stuff.
Should be ready in a couple of days.
Another issue is that DAW use the professional composersit has more to do with the format what with the DAW itself.Renoise plays in another league.No need to use another DAW to compose. With Renoise you can make up almost anything, less dependent on the post-production and mastering of others…
Mmm, I think this is some inherent psychological quality of Renoise - it somehow lets you convince yourself that you don’t need to use anything else. That quality is certainly why Renoise can call itself a DAW - but I would argue that it can be refreshing to render stems and load them up in a different DAW, if nothing else then just to get a different perspective. Also, try doing a multi-track recording of your band with Renoise? Sorry, can’t be done :o
Hey, I thought you guys were talking pianorolls?
Fsus4has hijacked the thread!
Mmm, I think this is some inherent psychological quality of Renoise - it somehow lets you convince yourself that you don’t need to use anything else.
Well, I’ve found some truth in this. Since starting to use Renoise, I’ve pretty much set aside my other DSP-oriented DAWs. Quite possibly for good. Why? I pondered it a bit and came to two conclusions. The first being that I prefer using samples over DSP. As a long time tracker user, Renoise has a very nice comfort level for me and the learning curve has been fairly low.The second, I’m having fun again. I’m spending more time creating my music and less time learning the DAW and vsts.
So, for me, Renoise is a good fit for the kinds of music I like to produce and the techniques I’ve learned. I may never need to use anything else.
YMMV.
Cheers.
Mmm, I think this is some inherent psychological quality of Renoise - it somehow lets you convince yourself that you don’t need to use anything else. That quality is certainly why Renoise can call itself a DAW - but I would argue that it can be refreshing to render stems and load them up in a different DAW, if nothing else then just to get a different perspective. Also, try doing a multi-track recording of your band with Renoise? Sorry, can’t be done :o
If you analyze the rest of DAW you will see that all lack some feature. Any DAW is not perfect or 100% complete, even with a entire department behind with a lot of money…
Yes, I believe the devs stated somewhere explicit after 3.0 beta started that Redux was a probe intoa new market. Of course, I totally applauded that decision, and I think there were only a few tracker punditswith a mindset stuck in 1989 that didn’t approve of that brave move. Fact: the market for Renoiseis extremely limited.Fact: A lot of consumers on thatextremely limited markethave a worldview thatideally they shouldn’t really have to pay for anything which is software. Conclusion:The profit margin for trackermanufacturers are close to zero.
Now I kind of see the Renoise/Redux relation as similar to Kontakt and Kontakt Player. You can build your Redux patches more easily within the richer editing environment of Renoise (Kontakt), then load it up within the Redux instrument (Kontakt player) inside your conventional DAW over at the studio.And that’s what I’d actually prefer for Renoise to be in the future: an advancedRedux library editor and (legacy) tracker DAW.
This wouldbe my preferred description of a Redux 2.0 and Renoise 4.0:
NEW IN REDUX 2.0:
+VST support: Now Redux can load both VST effects and instruments, just like you can in Renoise.
- Extended pattern editor: Now Redux offers Renoise’s magnificenttracker pattern editorto any DAW environment.
+Play phrases from multiple tracks and instruments: Trigger an entire band with a single keystroke
+Layered instruments: Combine your favorite VST instruments with samples, build complex phrases and patterns
+MIDI FX inserts and routing: Drive VSTsthrough other VSTs.NEW IN RENOISE 4.0:
C++ API for providing even more freedom to users to customize Renoise according to their preferences and needs
Piano rollstarter (open sourceC++ SDK)
Advanced integrated Redux library builder
+Render phrases from multiple tracks and instruments
- Audio tracks
In any case, if time is the main issue, I’d rather see they spent that limited time on making a tracker VST so that people could combine the best of two worlds in their music production (tracker composing/editing style and modern DAW features). Redux 2.0 FTW!!!
I think it is appropriate not to dream in a cloud. If I wrote my preferences, I collapse this forum.
The sensible thing would improve what is already there. Even without adding anything new of weight, but yes, of course, the perfecting the work areas to the fullest, and I mean Renoise. If time permits, support Redux.
The logical evolution is a complete renovation of the GUI of Renoise, a vectorial or something similar, and refining what is already thereand let toward a side the new features, because then, let Renoise unpolished.Renoise 3.1 has added new things, but it has been completely forgotten others need a good review (automation, keyzones, matrix, virtual piano, pattern editor, until the colors…); avoidthe happy philosophy of muddling through. A simple example: He was added the Menu Presents and compatibility in Sampler,but ignore the needs of Automation Editor. It is not so difficult to analyze all areas of work and find deficiencies.Perfecting of the work areas, even further improve performance, optimize use of RAM,greater fluency with the use of many tracks, greater control over the distribution of work areas, prevent it from being corseted,before adding new things, as a piano roll or make experiments involving Redux leaving Renoise, or anything of these.
Take advantage of the time perfecting Renoise. Then add everything you want!
Want you a VST include inside other VST? Redux is a plugin.If you want use a tracker+VST, better use Renoise with Rewire. Want you use a intermediate thing? Cut Renoise into slices?It may all sound very interesting, but in the meantime, Renoise is not polished and that is serious, very serious.The years pass!
I am proud to announce my new tool: GT16-Colors.
You can download it here:https://forum.renoise.com/t/new-tool-3-1-gt16-colors-v1-2a1-updated-12-june-2017/46473
This tool is somehow related to this topic. Download, use and enjoyment!