pj geerlings@Conquistador wrote:
@pj geerlings wrote:
–but–
Today I read in this thread that there was a new feature added in 1.75 regarding adding a “Create Drum Kit Template” command to the preset panel menu.
I’ll try it out tonight and see if that helps with my confusion
If not – I’ll be back 😉
peace,
pjHi pj 🙂
Were you able to solve the problem?
Sadly, no 🙁
I spent a very tiny amount of time on it this past weekend ( though I really should work through your tutorial instead of just reading it 8) )
I actually own RMX but I haven’t installed it yet – and I probably won’t ’cause I just ordered Steven Slate Drums LE 3.0 – damn, I’m pretty flakey 😉
Maybe I need to start with an existing Drum Map and modify but I can’t seem to find any existing Drum Map templates in the release …
-pj
pj geerlingsI was gonna post a whole new thread but it looks like I already started this thread 2 years ago 😳
It really is hell getting old … Anyways …
I did read through the tutorial from Conquistador (thanks!!) – sadly, I’m still confused 😕
–but–
Today I read in this thread that there was a new feature added in 1.75 regarding adding a “Create Drum Kit Template” command to the preset panel menu.
I’ll try it out tonight and see if that helps with my confusion
If not – I’ll be back 😉
peace,
pj
pj geerlings@Mike G wrote:
When comping it would be good if I could set a short loop running and move the “incision” location back and forth until it sounds good.
+1
That sounds like a fantastic idea !
pj geerlings@Zynewave wrote:
Any other uses for scales?
Select a group of notes
“Copy” the group a scale-wise third “up”
Instant harmony
Happy ending 😉
pj geerlingsThis thread is yet another example of why Frits is one of the greatest software developers on planet.
Thanks!!
-pj
pj geerlingsI’ve seen the same behavior as well
pj geerlingsThanks again – I’ll check it out tonight !!
peace,
pj
pj geerlingspj geerlingsThanks for the quick reply!
@Zynewave wrote:
If you haven’t modified the default setup,
I haven’t – I currently don’t want to deviate from the defaults as long as possible, so …
@Zynewave wrote:
there should be an “event list” profile in the piano roll editor view menu.
I read the section on the piano roll – no mention of the “editor view menu” – where is it?
@Zynewave wrote:
This event list does not have special editing features, so it is mostly usable for viewing existing events in list form.
Sounds to me like an Editor for the list view is a potential feature request – it could be a life saver – or not – I’m still very reluctant to request features before learnin’ about the ones we have already 😉
@Zynewave wrote:
Also remember the “select overlapping” command in the edit menu.
Er ah, Why? What does this do?
@Zynewave wrote:
@pj geerlings wrote:
how much of the manual is actually correct at this point?
There are lot of minor feature additions that are not included in the guide, so that is why I’m hoping to do a complete revision of the guide this summer.
Looking forward to that, for sure!!
Peace,
pj
pj geerlingspj geerlingspj geerlingspj geerlingsWhat about proportional size reduction?
pj geerlings@Zynewave wrote:
@pj geerlings wrote:
@Zynewave wrote:
If the problem is too many digits in “2009.1”, an alternative would be to remove the period in the old version numbers, and present the version as “build 209”, “build 210” etc.?
Could you list the next three releases using this scheme – I’m not sure I get this at all 😕
Build 211, Build 212, Build 213. Essentially just continuing the current numbering without the decimal point. But I have already regretted my use of the word “build”. This is often used as an internal counter of developer compilations.
Ah, thanks!
So how about B209.x for betas off of your next release (the one with PR upgrades) and R210 for the “next” release after that?
(Actually I am happy if you are happy – and any scheme that makes sense to you will be fine …)
peace,
pj
pj geerlings@Zynewave wrote:
@pj geerlings wrote:
But I would like to suggest the 9.xxx versioning for this year is probably adequate for the vast majority of users and a simple explaination “somewhere” should clear up any residual confusion
For people that may not know the reasoning behind it, it may appear as an attempt to inflate public opinion of Podium by jumping from 2.09 to 9.01. I fear that it would be the subject of ridicule on forums like kvr.
Again, I respect your reasoning ( I have been subjected to ridicule at KVR myself – though for different reasons 😉 )
I would observe that the news annoucement at KVR (and elsewhere) could include a statement outlining the rational behind the versioning change/bump.
@Zynewave wrote:
If the problem is too many digits in “2009.1”, an alternative would be to remove the period in the old version numbers, and present the version as “build 209”, “build 210” etc.?
Could you list the next three releases using this scheme – I’m not sure I get this at all 😕
peace,
pj