I don’t even care to have 100% accurate .xrns to .xm conversion… aproximate effects would be fine… I can always tweak in milky tracker… I just don’t like composing in anything but Renoise 
Well, there’s nothing stopping anyone willing to give it a try. 
Proper IT import would also be sweet.
I think it would be wise to develop a general xrns convertion utility xrns->binnary_raw which controlled with a data mapping xml file, then we need to build the xml’s for xm, mod and whatever else we need, for any other purposes.
what is binnary_raw ?
And I would like to see import for .doc, .pdf and .txt 
XM Specs are here:
http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.p…lease_id=514394
Please merge this with the other thread, I didn’t know this thread existed… Sorry.
And no, I have not started on anything.
Well, this time is for XM conversion, check at my site
http://zenon66.altervista.org/MyApps/applications.html
PS
It’s still the old mod converter utility with xm support added, so obviously I renamed it.
Now it’s Xrns2XMod
I was about to say yay, but then I ran it:
“ERROR: Object reference not set to an instance of an object”
Is it your module SAVED with renoise 2.5 ?
Because I forgot to make a simple check with doc version, and if your xrns is NOT saved with the latest renoise, course the parsing process won’t work.
Currently I’m doing some code optimization + sample conversion, therefore in the next version I’ll put this check;
but in case your song is already saved with renoise 2.5 and conversion to xm continues to fail please let me know.
Zenon
PS
Meanwhile, you can download latest version with version check added
Xrns2Xmod 0.8 released.
Added a preliminary support for audio samples in XM.
Site:
Me too… I sometimes write a track in ReNoise (having further optimalisations in mind) and then I just rewrite it to MOD or XM. Maybe it’s time hungry solution but it works great :]
Zenon: great, I’ll check your tool!
Xrns2Xmod 1.0 published
This time all possible data is converted (pattern, sample, envelope points…)
I still have some doubt on effects translation.
site url
Much as I love Renoise*…due to the still completely fucked up cell-selection behaviour, it’s still MUCH more efficient to use FastTracker or Milkytracker for XMs. Just try copying and pasting a 128-line block of painstakingly entered instrument numbers in Renoise to see what I mean. Or just the volume-column commands. Or just…ANY single cell, by itself, without a whole channel’s worth of unwanted crap. I’ve been tracking since Moses wore a nappy and in any other tracker, I can rustle up mad shit in seconds WITHOUT the burning desire to open a submenu, tick and untick some boxes, set some conditions, devise a cunning formula, cross my fingers, hold my nose, pray to Cthulu and then hope that the magic Apply button has done what I actually wanted it to. But NO, now I have to go back and fix everything with a million little mouse-clicks like a special needs kid trying to draw a Seurat on a Fisher Price blackboard.
It’s a tragic state of affairs that it’s still faster for me to do all my drum programming (and any intensive chipstyle, instrument-switching melody, or pattern delays, etc.) in Protracker on my A1200, shoot the CF card over to my PC, open the MOD in Renoise, swap out the samples and continue.
THIS IS LIKE BEING GIVEN A FERRARI AND A 20MPH SPEED LIMIT. WHAT. THE. FUCK.
(really, passionately love Renoise, despite my ranting! Obviously, I rant because I love it. And I’m not even drunk tonight)
Right-click a check box ticks the one box and unticks all the other automatically in the advanced edit. Rightclicking that box again ticks the rest back to the previous state.
Whatever is checked applies to short-cut keys as well, don’t need the rest of the clown-clicking circus perse.
So i think you are a bit overreacting. Ofcourse, would be nice to use a small key to set the field mask without needing to tick or untick boxes at all, you are right in that.
Thanks for the tips (sincerely!), but you miss my point: having to go into that stupid tickbox menu at all is a waste of time, when for 15 years - even in the most retarded trackers (lookin’ at you, OctaMed!) - I’ve been able to select my desired data cells with, for example, shift+downdowndown, shift+rightright, ctrl+c, downdowndown, ctrl+v, or whatever. Ninety nine times out of a hundred, I’m not interested in masking at all. Sure, it’s nice that it’s there, and it occasionally comes in handy, but many tasks simply don’t require it. Think about it: select your block, do a ctrl+i, you’ve interpolated the values! Lovely! Really doesn’t require a trip to the content mask as long as you have the ability to select data with specificity.
So respectfully (again, sincerely - this isn’t intended to be fightin’ talk!), I don’t think I’m overreacting. My paradigm of choice has reached its apogee in Renoise, yet my abilities have been hamstrung. And all it takes is to allow the shift+ selection to optionally cover just one cell (note OR instrument OR volume OR delay OR effectnum OR effectparam, etc) instead of automatically spreading the entire width of the current column. Much much much much much more trivial and personally subjective ‘workflow’ tweaks than this have been implemented, and that adds a little to the frustration.
I concede that I’m getting emotional about it…but Renoise wouldn’t be where it is today without passionate people who are prepared to evangelise; if evangelising about this miniscule feature is what it takes to help people realise what a timesaver it is, then I don’t feel bad about it 
just un update, there’s a little code that I wrongly leaved
on wavUtil as reported from Eduard of Renoise support.
Currently I’m not at home so just delete for yourself and sample should be converted or wait until I ll be back 
UR DOIN IT WRONG. Srsly, I used FT2 for years, and I find Renoise blazing fast in comparison. If you RTFM, you don’t need to pray to Cthulhu. I’ve never had an issue copying and pasting instrument numbers. Simply right click “Instrument” in content mask, select data, copy, paste. That’s a total of 1 click, 1 drag-n-click, and 2 two-key combinations. If that extra click is seriously throwing that much of a cramp into your workflow, then I’d again propose: UR DOIN IT WRONG.
I should also note that the content mask is highly useful for doing things quickly that would have taken a long time in FT2, such as copying and pasting only effect data for an entire pattern, or a selection spanning multiple tracks. There’s been many times I’ve used content mask with the humanize pattern function to heavily humanize (through repeated applications of the function) vol/pan/delay times on each note in a pattern, only to decide I wanted to revert it back to its previous state, and all I have to do is paste (with CTRL+F5) the whole-pattern worth of vol/pan/delay data I copied (with CTRL+F4) before. Call me crazy, but I’m pretty sure all this would have taken ages in FT2.
I see… well, that I agree with. There have been times I’ve found that annoying.
Zenon: Great work dude… Thanks for takin over the thread 
… Now if only I had the time to compo these days xD
Nice. If I hadn’t read the fucking manual, we wouldn’t even be able to have this discussion. Clicking AT ALL is a workflow cramp, because mouse-use is a waste of time and hundreds of tracker programs have recognised this. Also, your ‘1 click’ assertion is wrong if the advanced pattern editor is hidden - it usually is for me so I can maximise horizontal pattern viewing area. And if you’re going to come back at me with “well you should have it open already”, it’s got the ability to be minimised for some reason, so I’m making the most of it. Here’s another perfectly legitimate scenario: copy VOL, PAN, DLY so you can paste them against a different set of notes/instrumentvalues. Select a block (click+drag or shift+arrows), click to open advanced editor, right-click on volume, left-click on panning, left-click on delay, Alt+F4 (alt-keys, reprazent), Alt+F5. So our original only-slightly-more-laborious-than-necessary piece of workflow has almost doubled in length.
I more than slightly resent being chided about workflow gripes: “If that extra click is seriously throwing that much of a cramp into your workflow, then I’d again propose: UR DOIN IT WRONG”. Brilliant. Is that how a piece of software gets refined according to the specific requirements of its userbase? Would Renoise have made it this far if all responses to feature requests had been conservative and dogmatic references to extant features, without any discourse on their efficacy? You mock me, sir, but I don’t dig that.
We all know what ‘workflow’ means, and why it’s often seen as unpopular when people bring it up. To the impeded, ‘workflow’ means “if it worked like this, I could shave valuable seconds off an oft-repeated action, which add up to minutes or hours of my life saved”. The the contented, ‘workflow’ means “I’ve spent ages getting used to things the way they are; this guy’s workflow suggestion is just gonna piss me off. Why can’t he learn to do it like me?”.
To me, ‘workflow’ means a little of the above plus a large serving of “if it’s optional, it’s not going to do you any harm”. I’ll even write the manual entry for it, if you like, so that we’ve got a comprehensive resource to direct people towards when telling them to RTFM in future 
I wholeheartedly agree - the extant feature is FINE and GREAT, there’s no problem with it. It lets you do tricky shit that would have taken ages in FT2 - I’ve got no argument there! No probs. Zip. Nope. It’s all bless. Fine. Dandy! Brazilliant. Cool. Wicked.
And I’m NOT trying to argue against it
Ultimately, this is what it all comes down to. As long as it becomes possible to do this, you don’t need to worry about the socio-cultural/paradigmal/whatever impact of my subversion, because my problem would be instantly solved
As much as i can understand your simplicity of the idea, codewise that might probably be a hell lot of work to do. But it is simply just one workflow method that is discussed here. What currently is about Renoise is that it partially follows the Impulse Tracker and ScreamTracker route in this matter where this kind of editing ain’t any different. Which is one of the main reasons why a Fasttracker musician finds it very hard to switch to Screamtracker or Impulse tracker.
I know all three trackers very well so i didn’t really like to make a step back editing wise just to get some nifty NNA advantage and filters in a Screamtracker clone. (I swapped from ScreamTracker to FT2 and then from FT2 to IT2)
But i got used to it very quickly and adapted the workflow to use the techniques to my advantage.
On difference though:Everything in IT/ST3 were completely shortcut related. I barely touched the mouse at all. (Usually only to shuffle it out of my way or to remove the pointer from covering a vital area).
Just to summarize the experience:
If you really want to, you can change your habit into any workable workflow, but i see you have a lot of trouble adapting some habits.
Perhaps the scripting part in the next version will offer you some relief in these matters.
vV - I appreciate your response in all regards but one: I don’t have trouble adapting to new habits. Renoise is full of them and I embrace them so long as they’re worthwhile and efficient habits. I can perform the pattern-mask fandango as quickly and efficiently as it’s possible to perform it, but that doesn’t mean there’s not an even more efficient way of working.
S3M/IT references also appreciated, though while you make them to remind us that change is often necessary (with which argument I agree, but from the opposite direction in this case!), I say it reminds us that Renoise needs to cherry-pick only the best features of all its ancestors.
Like everyone else, I await with a drool-drenched chin the forthcoming scripting engine, but I really hope it doesn’t become a de facto response to feature requests - or, worse, a means of silencing fruitful discourse. I know you’re being helpful and suggesting that as a possible solution, and perhaps it will be, but I guess I’m just saying we should be careful not to nurture a forum-wide instinct to respond “bah, script it yourself when 2.6 is released!” (though I know that’s not what you’re saying!).
Sorry for yanking the thread off-topic. dblue’s kindly done what I should have done (but I don’t have Photoshop installed) in order to exemplify and reiterate this problem in a more widely-understandable way here: https://forum.renoise.com/t/improve-pattern-editor-selections/28619.