Let’s say you have a filter, and wanna control the cutoff with two or more LFO (or signal followers, hydras etc).
Right now the last device in the song “overwrites” what the others do.
So the simplest way I could think of would be a “weight” or “bias”.
LFO1 has weight 1, and a resulting value of 20%
LFO2 has weight 2, and a resulting value of 50%
So the filter cutoff at this point in the song would be (201 + 502) / 3 = 40% (if both LFO had the same weight, it would have been 35%).
As far as I understand it you have to route LFO2 to the offset of LFO1 to give the more complex modulations you are after.
yes, this is the way to do this. Also, in order to achieve different results, you can link the second LFO to the amplitude of the first one, instead of the offset
I’m aware of that approach, and I use it all the time, but still I think this additon would make things simpler and more intuitive. It would open a whole other dimension IMHO.
Only real way I could see would be the addition of a Control Voltage Mixer Meta Device. Could be done and would make changing which control signal is dominant a lot easier with automation…
?
Why couldn’t it simply be a tiny box next to “track”, “effect”, and “parameter” of the devices where this applies to - “weight”, with a default of 1?
New devices are great and all, but…
A modular approach is bad somehow? Modularity is precisely the way to go. The less specific the more flexible and open the solution. The envelope follower device is an excellent example. I’ve been biting my nails hoping for a generic device rather than a specific side chain compressor, so thank god.
I wouldn’t mind a control mixer device. It’s an inverse hydra anyway. Input sliders weighed to a routable output. That would be useful for MIDI control as well.
Edit: Did i mention how happy i am about the recent Renoise developments? I’m very happy with the recent Renoise developments! Happy happy joy joy! Modularity ftw!
Where did I say modularity is bad? What I am proposing is actually MOAR modular than what you propose. 
Instead of having a new device which you can insert between source and destination, it would always be there. It just doesn’t do anything until you assign several sources to a single target.
But why does that have to be an argument against making the routing that is there more capable? Why do you seem to imply that I “have something against” such a device? It would be perfectly possible to have both, you know…
Huh? How so, or rather, what is the difference between a “weight” parameter of LFO etc. and the “inputN weight” from such a reverse hydra? None.
What you want is a Filter device specific thing. Which is great if you use filters a lot, and that would be the ONE case where you’d need signal blending. What about cases where i want a bunch of control sources for distortion drive. Whoops, guess we need a weighting algo on EVERY DEVICE PARAMETER then. You can’t sell me that.
If I ever had a banner bearing cause for being involved in this community it’d be to bitch and argue every time someone wanted to clutter Renoise up with specific functionality that better serves the application as a whole by being generalized into a utility device.
As a rule of thumb, if you can distill a concept to its core idea, remove names and notions of TYPES of input sources and output receivers, and take that idea and move it to a device that is generically applicable, and if that device doesn’t have a counterpart, then I’ll agree it’s worth implementing. Until then I’m a huge skeptic 
I’m a huge, huge proponent of modularity. What you see in this community is that every single time a control metadevice is introduced, the scope of what people are able to do with Renoise grows almost exponentially. It’s totally emergent behavior, and the more we get of that sort of thing the more rad Renoise is as a platform. If you want to talk about opening new dimensions, methinks you need to start drawing up some more metadevices
You can average signals with a hydra… simply point one device at the MIN value of a hydra channel, and another at the MAX channel, and leave the hydra’s INPUT at 50%
What are you even talking about. Certainly not about anything I suggested in this thread… so, LOL at the rest.
Here’s the two key parts, see if you can figure it out.
read: ALL devices which allow to select a track/effect/parameter combo.
It wouldn’t be a property of the effects, but of the meta devices that control the parameters of other effects.
As I said, LOL. First, be able to read. Then, talk to me.
you just ignore that and repeat your lines??? wtf.
Just in case nobody noticed, I provided a makeshift solution above if anyone needs this functionality now.
Number box is no good as you are going to want a slider and the ability to be able to automate it.
Adding these to everything is going to add unnecessary clutter to devices when you will be not needing to change it the majority of the time. Also limits you a lot more than a separate device. Combining CV Mixers and Hydra devices to use the same signals with different weightings on different parameters/effects. That would not be possible, or very messy, with your suggested solution.