I’m a former MPT user, and I just registered Renoise, as it is OBVIOUS that this is the tracker of the future.
Whilst fooling around with my new toy, and idea dawned on me that I think I’ve seen here before:
Wouldnt it be great to have the track automation curves be visable and editable on the track itself. In other words, the pattern data of the track would be ‘covered’ (i envision not fully covered, just dimmed out a bit), and the automation curve would take it’s place. This way, the curve can span multiple patterns, and the musician would know exactly where the pattern split occurs. Obviously, making minute and precise tweeks would be easier this way.
well, there were some similar ideas about this some months ago.
about the dimming, I don’t think this as a good idea, as you can visualize at any time “where in the track you are”:
display the automation curve: there is a vertical line (which is yellow in the default color scheme) which tells you where the currently selected row is.
about the automation curves spanned over multiple patterns:
this could be a good idea but can be confusing. I suggested some time ago a button which one could use to “link” the new automation curve with the last one. This function should basically set the initial value of the new curve at the last value of the previous curve.
This result can be obtained by playing the pattern where the previous curve is, then create the new curve, which will be created as an horizontal line with the last value used.
The link feature, however, would let you do this even with existing curves, not only with new curves.
Hmm, I would like to be able to se as many patterns as possible in the track automation when you zooming out, but each pattern should ofcourse have a line in the automation, so that you se which pattern/song possition you are at.
Then also a scroll, so that you could scroll in the automation, if you dont want to zoom out that much…
We’ve been thinking about what to do with envelopes if/when implementing the tracksequencer (linkable noteclips). What we decided (sort of, we could of course still change our minds) was to combine track commands and envelopes to be one unit. Instead of calling it envelopes and commands we call it by one name, automation.
Each track will have automation for the parameters you wish it to have. Automation will be stored as linkable clips of values, of any length (though this would still be within one pattern). In the patterneditor you can choose which parameters should be shown, and each of those is shown as a column of effect values (perhaps extended to four digits values for better resolution) with the effect number on top of it in the trackheader. In the envelopeeditor you edit the same automation data. So each point you edit is reflected in position and value on the pattern, and vice versa. In the envelope editor you can turn on interpolation as now, which will show up in the envelope editor but not in the patterneditor. Of course, you can choose interpolation separate for each automation clip so you can interpolate a parameter in one part of a track and set points only in another part of it. Also, you can use the linked automation clips to use the same sets of values for different parameters, or repeat the same envelope as you whish and when you wish.
Anyway, this fits nicely with showing envelopes within the patterneditor, since the commandcolumns would then be the same thing as the envelopes anyway.
And for IT-Aliens wish, that would just be entering a value in the right patterneditor automationcolumn. For instance, there could be shortcuts “show all automationcolumns” and “hide all automationcolumns” doing exactly what you ask for.
I know… I think the way to go is to make it possible to hide certain columns without actually removing them from the track. So you can choose to view only some parts of the track to make more of the relevant data fit into view.
I don’t agree at all. In fact, I think it would be great to have the automation curves next to the notes. It-alien, are you just getting used to old habits, or do you actually have a reason you prefer the current way (well, obviously you do, but the argumentation that a yellow line is better than the pattern makes no sense )
And viewing several curves at once is not the only advantage, that’s simply not true. This would give a much better overview than the current view, which imho would speed up working with automation.
As a side note, this would also go hand in hand with the planned pattern zoom. Otherwise a zoom has to be introduced in the automation as well.
If Ermi does not need the comparison, I would be quite interested on what you have to say on this matter splajn. If nothing else would maybe help with the ideas and suggestions for renoise
edit: also more support for this threads feature in renoise here.
Yes! You read my mind or you went to the MT forum?
I would love a comparison as I’m deciding between those two right now.
(you can make a new thread, btw)
Anyway, if Renoise had latency delay compensation I’d be a new costumer.
(edit: and a mixer too… )
Two more things about automation:
The way it is right now is actually quite good too.
How do you center/reset an automation point? I mean: you pan to the left and then you make another point which is supposed to be dead center. How do you know it is center? I haven’t seen any numbers which display the pan value… but I’m new to this program, have mercy.
)
