ZynewaveHere’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.
Zynewavemaybe 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.
ZynewaveBut 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?
Zynewavetracks 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.
ZynewaveAfter 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.
Zynewavebut 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.
ZynewaveThis 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.
ZynewaveI’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.
ZynewaveZynewaveThat 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.
ZynewaveThanks suges. I have downloaded the documentation for the Mackie control, when the time comes for this feature.
ZynewaveIf by “multieffect” you mean an equalizer or others basic processes, that will use far less CPU and memory than an external one, of course you have my vote
EQ would be one of the first effects, along with dither and channel management (stereo/mono switch on master track).
I’m considering adding a new FX panel to the track inspector. At the top of this panel you would have a grid where you can assign/route effect modules in serial or parallel. Editors for the effect modules in the grid would then be shown in a list below the grid. On the mixer I would add a new FX row. This row would have a button to toggle a popup panel with the effect modules, similar to the FX list in the inspector.
This morning I received news that good old Steinberg have updated the VST spec to version 2.4, with support for 64 bit processing. This should go well with Podiums 64 bit mixing engine. That’s another plus for implementing the effects in a plugin, rather than integrating them in Podium.
But for this kind of effect, perhaps that it will be logical to NOT be an option and increase slightly the price of Podium ?
My intent with an add-on license, was to allow users not wanting the effects to still have Podium at the 90€ price. I may decide that it will be too much trouble to administrate different licenses, considering the low price, so I may end up with increasing the price of Podium instead.
Zynewaveregarding UI: if they had the same look as Podium (even if they were seperate VSTs) that would be fine, ie using the same knobs that the mixer users… it’s a nice look, and doesn’t look like hardware. i realise if they were separate VSTs they could not use the same colour settings as Podium’s interface, so maybe a default grey/silver could be used with the green highlighted knobs
I made a test version of the synth plugin with a native UI, using the same code basis for UI as Podium uses. I also made it react to Podium color changes, so the plugin window looked like any regular Podium window. The VST spec has a Vendor specific call, which allows e.g. Podium and Zynewave plugins to exchange information not used in other hosts.
stefancrs has a licence for synthmaker… that’s right isn’t it stefancrs?
maybe you can whip up some basic synths/effects for including in example projects?
I also have a license for Synthmaker, which I got with the intent to create simple plugins to bundle with Podium. Unfortunately there is still some way to go before Synthmaker can be used to create efficient plugins. My main problem with it is the large amount of memory resources each plugin use, and the long initialization time. This is not practical when I want to create e.g. a channel plugin which potentially could be used in more than hundred instances.
Podium is not an entry level multitrack software but could compete with professional ones, and I don’t think that the lack of integrated effects will be a problem for potential users of Podium.
I’m not moving focus away from providing a professional host, but I think providing example projects that play straight out of the box are important. I have gotten a lot of feedback from people that have not managed to create sound in Podium, before giving up. One user even misunderstood the need for installing the freeware plugins in the freebees example project.
That doesn’t solve your demo song problem though, if the plugins aren’t unlocked your demo can’t use them
I think it will be possible to use the plugins in demo mode as well.
And if there’s a beta test to sign up for these soft synths, LET A BROTHA KNOW! hahah
Don’t worry about it 😉
My intention with the effects plugin is to provide a multieffect plugin that on the UI side integrates into the track inspector and the mixer strips. This will provide a solution to the problem with the deep track hierarchy when chaining multiple effect plugins.
The synth plugin I’m working on, is just plain fun. I wanted to prove to myself that making plugins was no harder than making a host 😉
Frits
ZynewaveHi Stu,
Offline bounce rendering is similar to the previous realtime bounce recording feature, only it renders the bounce audio tracks without streaming to your audio interface, and by doing so typically can render faster-than-realtime and without sound dropping out because of CPU spikes, etc.
Check out the last section of the new ‘getting started’ tutorial to see how you use the ‘render bounce track’ command.
Frits
Zynewave