.xrns To .xm Converter

(syphus) #21

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 :D

(vV) #22

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.

(syphus) #23

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.

(Conner_Bw) #24

I’ll be the resident dickhead and proudly boast I didn’t read a word you typed.

Can you summarize what you want without all the creative writing?

Is it the ability to select any column via shift+home, shift+end? If so I agree. But won’t do it in a hijacked thread about C# coding full of diarrhetic ranting.

Start your own thread, write clearly, not cleverly. English is not everyone’s first language.

(vV) #25

Nopes it ain’t… the scripting is to allow everyone to do the nitpicking features while stuff that scripting really doesn’t offer (like audio tracks, an arranger, improved instrument architecture etc) are the things that Taktik can concentrate himself on because we all want that too won’t we?
And we won’t do a “script it yourself” policy.
I’ve made a few scripts based upon requests done here. Some still need polishing, but they perform their job.
Other team members also made scripts based upon requests, so there are coming a few nice things around with 2.6, not simply just a scripting enginge and then a figure-it-all-out-yourself attitude.
However i know for sure there will be more contributers along the way that shall take the challenge of whipping up a working script to fill in a feature request.

(Conner_Bw) #26

And voila, a considerate and coherent user did the work for you:

Horray! :)

(syphus) #27

vV - okay, good to hear :) I guess the closer we come to release, or perhaps just after release, there’ll be more of a “do it with a script and here’s how you might go about it” approach. I hope to leap on the scripting and get to grips with it, both for my own benefit and so that I can help others by dropping clues here and there. Also good to hear you’ve made some scripts already - looking forward to them!

Conner - well, I’ve already been the resident dickhead in this thread :)

“If so I agree. But won’t do it in a hijacked thread” - yup, and I’ve apologised, and you’ve found dblue’s thread, so thanks for agreeing in that one :) [edit - oh, forgot you hadn’t read any of the thread so wouldn’t have seen this :) ]

“Start your own thread, write clearly, not cleverly.” - I don’t think I’m particularly clever (but thanks!), but I did start my own thread on this. Actually two. But, as I said before, I didn’t make graphics to help make my case and now that dblue’s kindly done that, with accompanying clear explanations, hopefully more people will be able to get an understanding of the request.

(Chris Edberg) #28

I was checking this out and it says on your page “There are bass audio libraries available for linux / OSX;
check out the Bass Audio homepage below and find out how run this application on non-windows os with mono”

I did but I don’t understand. Can you, or someone else, please explain in a step-by-step tutorial how I make this program work with mac?

(Zenon) #29

Hi, sorry for the late answer but it’s been a while I don’t login here :)

What I can tell about linux/mac support for bass audio is that some times ago I tried to make all works properly with mono but I failed to properly load the libraries; with (I guess) several fixes on the source code maybe you could try to have success with this problem.

Check out this un4seen forum also.

Unfortunately I have not so much time to do this (moreover I should update application to the new renoise version).



Already done

(Zenon) #30

Latest version of Xrns2XMOD now supports linux version with Mono with binaries compiled. :)

(Zenon) #31

Updated compatibility to the latest version of renoise 2.7

Xrns2XMOD home

(teis) #32

where can i find the tool for in renoise?

(HarryUP) #33

I cannot figure out how to install it in ubuntu. Can you help me?