I am not even talking about the sysex issue. But little things like pitch bend and setting the volume of a part are too cumbersome. In Cubase they are just a click away. I think this should be improved. I use a tracker because I want to work quicker, not slower.
It’s also just not very professional, when I have to explain to a new user how to do a pitch bend in Renoise (“91 4000 what?!?”). A lot of people actually use midi you know, but I got the feeling the devs don’t.
That would make pitch bends inaccurate because they only would have 256 (0-FF) step parameter range, while original range has 16,384 different values.
But would be easier to handle in tracking interface, and many since many devices work only with 128 different values in pitch bend messages, it could be very functonal solution. Just make it send only the MSB range and ingore the LSB.
Since there will not be separate midi/vst and audio/sample channels, right? Like you push a button in channel’s base dsp-machine where the volume&stuff are and select either midi/vst or sample channel which then determines the mapping of the pattern commands?
i think the list of interessting upcoming features and improvements can be long. e.g. a dream is maybe multiple automation curves within a track beside every track … also for pitchbends (and i agree - this is really needed)
the idea of votings for up-coming versions features was a good idea … let’s keep this or renovate this for 1.6
I think it would be easy for the user if he could choose what type of instrument the current instrument is. VSTi, midi or built-in sampler. That way, only the options that can be used for the specific instrument type can be used. It would map it all effects (instrument volume, pitch bend) to the correct action internally.
So there won’t be confusion over which pitch bend command to use. In the same way a general instrument volume could be used, that will be mapped to VSTi (audio volume), midi (midi part volume) or sampler (sample volume). So when you won’t accidentaly change the wrong kind of volume (and you won’t get “why is instrument volume not working on my midi device” from users).
Of course, there is the resolution problem (midi pitch bend against tracker pitch bend). But I think the midi resolution should be taken because it’s more standard and a higher resolution. Imported .rns files would be automatically converted.
You mean what type of “track” it is, right ? Thats where all the problems start: MIDI and VST`s are currently bound to instruments, not tracks. Thats also why we need all the inderection mess via the MetaDevices or complicated Pattern syntax which always needs to define a instrument next to the MIDI effect.
And that is also one of the big strengths of renoise. Belive me. A dedicated track for each midi instrument/channel can be very cruel. Especially for people that program with huge sample libraries that has many variations for the same instrument. You dont wont to split those into several tracks!
But in the end I dont see why you cant have both systems. You then have to insert special dedicated midi tracks.
I wouldnt mind if you could choose to insert three different type of tracks. Normal multi-track (as those today), midi track (dedicated to one midi channel), and audio tracks (wave streaming).
Now that would be something
Just to add a few things to this.
By default all instruments you add is ‘free/on its own’ like today.
If you insert a new ‘midi track’ it will be ‘grayed out’ telling you that you need to add a midi channel (like a dedicated instrument). You do this by simply drag & drop an instrument from the instrument list into the midi track. Now they are connected and dedicated. All notes in this track will only use that instrument. The instrument it self should change colour as midi instruments do today. If you wanna hear the same notes with another instrument, you simply drag & drop any other instrument into the track.
This is an easy and simple way of using both systems in the same interface.
Confusing? Oh come on, you have learned a lot of stuff up until this point. Why stop there? Besides, Pysj has a good point when he says ‘…great improvement for users that require some extented use of renoise…’
Pitchbend works with absolute values (basenote + some value), 01xx and 02xx are relative commands (pitch higher, lower), so they are not combatible.
Well, they would if something like a reset pitch command would exists, but this complicates things a lot imho …