We tried to reduce the amount of hexidecimal numbers in the software to a minumum, to avoid that newbies are totally confused. But you are right by saying that it still could be optional to have them back.
What should then be optionally in hex ? The pattern numbering, the pattern indices, and ?
#1 - can’t see any “efficiency” …10,20,30,40 or 16, 32, 48, 64 … and what’s up with 3/4 timing - your efficiency is gone … and if the boring tick-timing is gone it’s more unimportant … or again a disadvantage …
#2 - and that’s important? … in current screen resolutions and good styled ui’s?
#3 as i said … a musician should learn a new numeric system to make music?
it’s a question what the dev-team want: keeping the old style and don’t annoy the old tracker fans or try new things and move tracker style music editing to a new horizon …
for me it’s ok to see and use both - i started with soundtracker … but i saw hunderts of music appz … the only music apps that still using this newbie and musician hostile numeric system are trackers … i see no real sense for this … software should be intuitive and simple as possible to use …
I made a thread about Small Various Things in the General Discussion and one of the things I brought up was that I missed the hexadecimal count in the pattern arranger!
Bring it back damn it!
To some it’s an advantage, to those who is used to it - to others it’s an disadvantage who’s not used to it. So if it’s OPTIONAL it makes everyone happy!
Don’t forget that one of the reasons why some use Renoise is just because it’s pretty Retro friendly to the old trackers. It has kept some of the essential things which defines a true tracker, as the hexadecimal count. Simple as that.
He probably meant that hex format is part of the vintage style that adds to the concept of what a tracker is. (so that you know you are composing music and not entering some formula’s in an Excel-sheet.)
If hex has a good comfort purpose, why should it be left out?
I do agree:it’s either all hex or all decimal and not mixed mode numbering systems because that is sometimes confusing.
And as of the “extra” work: Usually a few tears sweat to implement that in my applications but not days of investigation.
I am still deep into this UTF-8 encoding stuff…
I was wondering if we couldn’t implement such system into our effect columns… we could have more effects with the same digits!
Then every tracker for sure has to use a calculator to calculate different values to figure out which command is what number and then which value means which number.