Zynewave's Forum Page
Forum Replies Created
-
ZynewaveKeymaster@Improv wrote:
@duncanparsons wrote:
That sounds good..
…folks use that kind of tree structure everyday with Windows explorer, and have no trouble with that..Yes, but explorer goes from the general to the specific:
c:DocumentsBusinessInvoicesJanuarySmithandCo.doc ;
not SmithandCo./January/Invoices/Business/Documents/:cThe second path is how Podium looks to me right now, which seems counter productive.
We have opposite views on this. I see the C: root folder as the master track. With this view, the current track tree structure is similar to the file list you see in the Podium list window.
ZynewaveKeymaster@Improv wrote:
@Zynewave wrote:
I don’t think this is practical. Collapsing group tracks would fold upwards, meaning the track you clicked to collapse moves upwards (away from your mouse pointer). Parameter tracks would be positioned above instrument tracks. etc.
Does this happen in existing sequencers/hosts like Cubase SX? I don’t think so. (Maybe, I don’t use groups in SX)
As I said earlier, in Podium the track folder hierarchy IS the signal flow. So if you want the group folders placed below the items within the group, to get a top down signal flow, then the tracks above would need to fold downwards. Quite the opposite of standard tree listbox navigation. If group folders in other hosts were used as signal path, then they too would flow bottom up.
ZynewaveKeymasterMultiple mappings was a solution, because current “copy track” workaround eats track region space also. I vote for midi busses. What do you think?
I think MIDI over busses is the best solution for this.
ZynewaveKeymasterYou mean the right edge above the CPU indicator? Not right of the current Track inspector?
At the right edge of the timeline, before the vertical slider. A flow panel that can be dragged in size or hidden. If you take the hierarchy connection lines in the track header area, you just swap those horizontally so that the master will appear rightmost. Or rather; take the strip header area in the mixer, and rotate it 90 degrees to the right. The hierarchy levels would be wider, to hold the various dials and buttons.
ZynewaveKeymasterAgreed. An option to hide those tracks would be very useful.
Here are some suggestions that may help…
I don’t think it has to be that customizable. I would add a ‘view’ menu button to the track inspector (similar to the view button in the mixer), with a ‘hide collapsed tracks’ option. When enabled, all tracks within collapsed group tracks would be hidden. Not just parameter tracks. The collapsing/unfolding of tracks would then behave just like e.g. browsing objects in the list boxes. You still have the ‘+’ button on the group track to indicate that there are tracks within that are hidden.
ZynewaveKeymasterHere’s another idea to expand on the current hierarchic editor:
Similar in behaviour to the track inspector panel at the left edge, a new ‘flow inspector’ panel is added to the right edge. The track lanes extend into this flow inspector with a sort of reversed (swapped left/right) hierarchic structure of the track headers. This flow panel will show the signals running from left to right, but still bottom to top. Your instrument plugins will thus appear before effect plugins. The track header horizontal meters and BSMR buttons could be moved to the flow inspector, freeing up some needed space for showing the full track name. The flow panel could also include gain/pan/send controls to make it work as an alternative mixer, as well as buttons for opening plugin editors, etc.
ZynewaveKeymastermaybe it’s time to try reversing the order of the heirarchy… instruments at the top, followed by FX, and eventually all tracks trickle down to the master out
I don’t think this is practical. Collapsing group tracks would fold upwards, meaning the track you clicked to collapse moves upwards (away from your mouse pointer). Parameter tracks would be positioned above instrument tracks. etc.
ZynewaveKeymasterBut right now, I don’t find Podium to be that visually more obvious. As I mentioned before, it seems upside down and backwards sometimes. And that is tremendously frustrating to users.
I realize that the hierarchic approach will not appeal to everyone, even if they fully understand the concept. It is possible to take the Podium track structure and apply a simple/traditional arrangement editor to it, while imposing some restrictions on the flexibility. Then you could always swap over to the current hierarchical editor if you want to create more complex routings. If I were to do this, I probably would go for a layout similar to Tracktion, where going from left to right you have: input mappings, the timeline, chains of plugins, and master out. Would this be worth doing?
ZynewaveKeymastertracks would no longer appear to be grouped around other tracks. especially if the effect tracks were “hidden” by default (only lines displaying) i think the visual flow of audio could get lost.
You would only be able to hide group tracks that have a single subtrack, i.e. the first tracks in the new chained groups in the mixer, and only if you select a similar ‘compact chained…’ view option for the tracks region. Hiding tracks that have more than one subtrack would otherwise disturb the track hierarchy lines, as you figured out. But I’m still thinking about it.
I also intend to add a view option for hiding tracks in a collapsed group track. That is the tracks that currently are drawn as very thin bars. When you have a lot of automation tracks, even collapsing the group still occupies a lot of space.
ZynewaveKeymasterAfter all, every host and sequencer has a heirarcy-it’s called a signal chain!
Most other hosts also has various mechanisms for organizing tracks. Often in the form of special group-folder tracks. Of these hosts, many does not allow nesting multiple group folders. In Podium, the track hierarchy is used both for the visual arrangement as well as for the signal/control routing.
ZynewaveKeymasterbut I wonder if having it selected by default is not a risk to confuse people a little more with the real signal flow ?
Maybe. Anyone else care to comment on this?
Does the Edit and the other buttons for the plugins will be still visible ?
I’m thinking about extending the top area above the panels in the track inspector (where the track name is written). It could show a line for each track in the current hierarchy position, with master at the top, and the lowest focus track at the bottom. You could then click the lines for the effect plugin tracks in the chain, to set focus to this track and edit the properties. That way only the lowest audio/instrument track in the chain would need to be shown as a track lane.
ZynewaveKeymasterThis feature is going up the todo list pretty fast, but I have no time estimate yet. There is no easy workaround. To crossfade two audio events, you need to put them on separate tracks, create ‘level’ parameter automation for each audio track, and edit the fade-in/out manually in the two level curve sequences.
ZynewaveKeymasterI’ll appreciate any feedback you have on this new method of displaying wrapped tracks.
I’ve been thinking about various methods to reduce the number of hierarchic levels that you get when wrapping audio/instrument tracks in multiple effect plugin tracks. Implementing assignment of multiple mappings on one track (as was on the plan) would disturb the principles of the hierarchic track structure. This chained group feature keeps the hierarchic approach intact.
If users are happy with this feature, I’m planning to implement it in the tracks region as well. This would open up for an option to hide the track lanes for effect plugin tracks. As these tracks are not meant to have any events on them, they are just wasting space in the track timeline.
ZynewaveKeymaster- Compact chained audio tracks.
ZynewaveKeymasterThat may be a bit ambitious with the online connect and RSS feed and what not. There certainly need to be a lot more Podium users before this is worth doing. Are you saying that it is a nuisance to have to download both the installer and the two zipped device definition files from the VIP download topic? If so, I could make each Podium release available in two installers. One with the definition files and one without. When there are more example projects added, then these could also be stripped from the ‘minimal’ installer. I believe Tracktion uses this approach.