I don’t upload my tools, they don’t meet the quality standards of being able to handle unsuitable conditions with an error message instead of a scripting terminal eror message. ;p
More over that’s not my tool I’ve only edited VV’s, you’ll have to ask VV to do a proper implementation and upload it.
Try something like this:
Wow , that … looks … wow. I don’t know what it is man, where are the faders, what is it good for ?
The min amount is your fader.
Sry but i don’t solve a problem based on complexity by increasing the complexity even more.
It is not improving the quality of my workflow.
gova: you should do it cause your tool is basically what i wanna for year or two 
I had already discussion with VV in another topic about it. And he wasnt sure if some parameter can be focused and automatized right after. Obviously it can in cases i´ve tried.
gova: you should do it cause your tool is basically what i wanna for year or two
I had already discussion with VV in another topic about it. And he wasnt sure if some parameter can be focused and automatized right after. Obviously it can in cases i´ve tried.
Dunno, try this thread https://forum.renoise.com/t/tool-idea-param-predictor-working-prototypes-attached/38136
It’s his tool and my implementation is limited either way, only he can update the page.
Still waiting for a solution, to reduce compelxity !
Hi ! I am still in need of a tool, that reduces complexity like described in this very old topic,
are there any news to simplyfy routing devices ? I did not push my topic for too long …
How about the new Renoise, does it have a solution ?
Pushing again, I really need a solution.
For routing and MIDI configuration, you can save an XRNM file and upload it later to always have the same controls already mapped. That way you don’t waste time. You only map once.
With the API you can create specific window tools for your hardware MIDI devices.
These tools may require manual mapping (same as Renoise), or that they already come fully mapped according to your schedule. You press a switch and everything is ready.
What exactly are you looking for?
Seems you did not truly understand what I am looking for, so I try to explain it with other words now.
I suggested a Dummy-Daw-Controller, where I can add any controls I want to, so I can give it a useful name and be able to control all attached controls by only acessing this Dummy Device itself instead. This way I would not always have to waste time on each device to find the one control I want to use right now, so basically this Dummy-Daw-Controller would reduce each connected devices complexity on only the controls I will definitely use.
It would be a super-device.
Imagine to have presets on this Dummy-Daw-Controller, you could load any setup with ready assigned controls of a bunch of devices which I use for certain tasks while you are in the middle of your project.
It would always be constructed by an individual mix of knobs and faders (etc.) how ever you need it.
This would improve workflow drastically. It is not even a really hard project. Don’t know why nobody really is interested or does truly understand my intention.
If you are still unsure about what I mean, ask again pls ty for your interest,
So… kind of…
Almost as if you had a doofer device with clever hydras in it? But more flexible with different gui controls, and more globally available in the interface?
It’s quite a nice idea imo. Kind of like an ability to set up “master parameters” for a song (maybe the fancy daw term is “global macros”), instead of having to setup and find them on individual tracks. Well, you can always set up clever meta devices on the master track, actually. That’s not too far from what you’re asking, other than a ‘better’ GUI for it?
Only 2 comments, or more… 
Building a tool that does all that is not easy. It would be full of notifiers everywhere. Because you need to analyze at all times if what you are controlling exists or not. That is, you can control objects that may exist or not.
I imagine everything necessary to build such a tool and it is probably possible to control it specifically in that way. You want a friendly, compact graphical interface that only shows the controls you want, without distractions.
However, nobody has built anything like this for these reasons, I believe:
- The tool code is complex. Or what is the same, depends on many states.
- The conversion of the ranges, both for the absolute and relative mode of the MIDI input. There are hundreds of parameters with different ranges that should be converted. Remember that MIDI input is a standard, and the tool has to adapt to it. This is complex, because it is a lot of parameters. Taktik is a fucking genius!
- You have almost the same with the view of the mixer and a chain of hydras on the master or fx track, which you can save as an XRNT device chain. It offers you a horizontal slide bar from 0 to 100% to control any type of range and is MIDI mappable.
- Save the changes. The song format saves all the chains. The tool should save a global setting for each song. One more addition of complexity.
With each Hydra you can assign the parameters you want (several at once) and link them to the track you want. Hydras should not be inside a doofer.
This is exactly what you are looking for: add a controller and link it. Repeat this several times. And you already have that.
And if those Hydras bother you on the master track, use an FX track on purpose. There you have everything.
Oh, and most importantly (I think), that you can automate in a centralized way.
Do not forget that the chain of hydras can be loaded into any song (XRNT) and you can load your MIDI configuration (XRNM). Then you will see that each song has different tracks and different devices with their parameters. You will have to link again, as you would with any super tool.
The mixer with Hydras!!!
Rename each Hydra. Sorry, you will not have wheels. In the mixer you can show or hide the slider bars of each device.
The Hydra (out of a doofer):
It seems that it is only a matter of being a little tidy and knowing how to use all this.
https://tutorials.renoise.com/wiki/Meta_Devices (search Hydra)
The tool should be very complex to overcome the Hydra, which even allows different scales and a range of control. Thanks to the Mixer (which is what it is for), such a tool is not necessary.
Or use an xypad instead of hydra if you’d ever want two parameters in one device 
Setting up key mixing features of a song in a dedicated track maybe isn’t such a bad idea. Making it easy to automate between song sections, for instance.
No, it would just open the related devices when you pick a Template to load, so it would always make sure, the devices do exist on load.
Hydras really are not anything close to it, because they need to be configured, and while diving into the Hyrda, I will forget (lose connection with it in my brain ^^) the creative Idea I want to follow, because the Software demands full concentration, instead of being of help for me to get quickly to a point, where I can realise my idea.
Btw. sry for the late answer, sometimes I am too busy.
So let me explain the process again in Detail, maybe that helps people understanding how and why better.
I decide to create a synthesizer sequence with an lfo, then I select the predifined Template in my Virtual Daw Controller which is for example named : LFO Synth.
Then on the Virtual Daw Controller the predefined control appears, which is already connected to the Synthesizers LFO filter (or whatever), it will load/create it on demand then and be set up as predefined (with predefined settings loaded etc.). So I have instantly my favorite synth sound to realise creative ideas quickly, to later manually change all detailed settings and dive into the software settings.
It is like a Template you can load in the middle of the creation process.
Normally, I only have the chance to use templates in form of Song templates, which I can load before I did do anything in it. The VirtualDawController Templates I could load in the middle of creating a song. They would be totally individually adaptable and of desired complexity.
I mean that the tool must be shielded against situations in which the device is not present. Not at the time of loading a profile, but during use.
For example, if the user deletes a device in an effect chain, the tool has to know that the user has deleted it, and act accordingly.
A tool is like a stupid machine. The programmer has to tell (program) everything he has to do.
I love this paragraph. You should frame it in a box or something because it is magnificent. Precisely this is like a master guide to create any tool.
The issue of all this is that creating such a tool is not easy. You have to attend to many states, constantly update specific values. Everything has to be programmed.
At the moment you have two solutions. Try to learn Renoise’s native devices better, such as a Hydra, so that the head is not distracted.
The other solution is to learn to program (the API of Renoise + LUA code). Then with the vision in mind of the tool, start writing the code so that everything works. Here the GUI of the tool is also important. Because you will need a direct GUI, which does not distract you. You already have the name of the tool. It only remains to program it.
Renoise really works roughly like this. For example, if you want a whole chain of specific effects, you can create as many as you want and save and retrieve them in other projects. The controls are there too.
The only problem that I have understood that you have is that you need to have something like a centralized tool with only the specific controls that you think you need. And here is the difficulty. That the tool cannot guess what the user wants. Everything has to be programmed previously according to these criteria.
The best thing in this case is to make a very clear guide, before you start programming. You will need several notifiers that will be constantly working. Here a tool with an ON / OFF switch would be successful.
On the other hand, you will need to have clear notions of how to add or remove parts of the GUI. The other day a user was asking things about this precisely. Maybe you are interested.
Yes, it is the core idea to reduce the complexity.
No question, that Renoise does really satisfy any need for complexity, but it does not offer any grown up useful tool, to simplify for quick use.
I was never sure, if this idea would need to be realised as an addon, maybe it should more be a new core component of a new version of Renoise.
I think everyone, who understood it, would agree, that it is a mighty tool.
Actually, since Renoise disconnects me very often from my creative flow, I am using other external tools or programs, that is also why I am rarely here. I am still a big fan of Trackers, and that is how I started all.
I love to get into the very details, but that should not be the only focus of the Renoise Devs, they should also think about a new Meta level, to allow also the quick use on point. Like for example Reason has the front and back side of a device.
It is pretty much as u say.
Like I pick controls of many devices, put them all into one central spot, and stash the rest away, so I do not need to look at it.
Like a Daw Controller does.
You only see it, and it is linked to something else, you do not need to look at, since it does only externalise controls.
Everyone likes Daw Controllers because of exactly that reason, it makes things available that are important and ignores what you do not need to care about.