Not three windows, I agree, since we can use Interface or local interface builders if we need to have somme more screens when in sequencer or live mode.
It's true that in sequencer, it would be cool to have access to all inouts.
But talking about windows, thr thing that misses me a lot would be the ability to have more than one patch edit window, specially when using a lot of busses. But this is only for patching purposes, no use when playing...
Thanks Olivier for asking, and still more thanks for your hard and great job.
Statistics: Posted by Vincent — 01 Sep 2008, 17:00
]]>
'hide all windows' sounds good though!
Statistics: Posted by Clearscreen — 30 Aug 2008, 04:40
]]>
I am paying close attention, though!
Statistics: Posted by runagate — 29 Aug 2008, 08:00
]]>
I have tested at home and it seems to add more confusion: too many windows on the screen and we can be lost very quickly.
The option to have both modes is hard to implement, so I'll probably let it in the actual state, waiting for a miraculous idea! Especially a way to show all inputs in sequencer mode. (actually you have to select a patch to display the input)
The good news is that I've just implemented the 'hide all windows' command as a toggle key
[esc] key --> hide all
[esc] key again --> show previous hidden windows.
Statistics: Posted by senso — 28 Aug 2008, 23:27
]]>
I don't see any real point in having three separate windows the way you describe it, but I wouldn't mind having the opportunity to open up separate patch windows when editing (especially when I get a second monitor:)).
Regarding the grid and the sequencer, I see the sequencer window of today as a place to edit stuff - not something I would want to look at when actually playing. I know I've suggested something of the sort quite some time ago; the ability to choose between grid or sequencer live on each channel/track. The grid channels would have the rack available and the sequencer could have the insert patch on/off available.
Some easy way of minimizing/maximizing (or turning off/on) more that one window at the time would also be nice, of course!
Statistics: Posted by bsork — 28 Aug 2008, 21:56
]]>
Having three independant window could be great, as having only one. The both can be useful depending of the situation ( on stage, at home with two monitor), and your workflow...Modularity is the most important, i believe. You are not "locked" in a special way of working. What's great with Usine is that it does what you need.
Would it be possible to have the choice between one or three different windows?
For me, Reaper is not perfect in his window management, but could be the way to take. Windows can be floating or unfloating...Would it be possible to have the grid, patch or seq window in the interface builder if we need it?
I find great to be able to use the Seq for midi files and VSTi for example, and the grid window for audio in treatment for example...Althought i'm not yet doing it, but i plan to. So to my point of view, keep them separated...
Despite i'm not sure to have been helpful,this my point of view: modularity, and encapsulating grid, patch and seq window in an interface builder if needed.
Statistics: Posted by ethnix73 — 28 Aug 2008, 19:04
]]>
My workspace building is more and more going to the direction of interface building. Basically I am ending up with a screenful of interfaces of my own, be it global, local or interface within interface. To me this is great: ever since the possibilities for local interface building arrived, this has been the direction.
Therefore, what I'm mainly missing at the moment is a possibility to quickly and easily hide all open windows to be able to do some patching and then to just as easily bring back up all the windows as they were. At the moment I have to manually minimize all the windows to be able to have a full-screen patching environment and manually maximize them again. Otherwise I quite like how things are currently. Mind you, I still haven't gotten much into using the sequencer so I can't speak much about that...
antwan
Statistics: Posted by antwan — 28 Aug 2008, 17:16
]]>
I suspect there is some confusion arising from not having patches available in both grid and sequencer mode (eg. if you drop a .wav in the seq mode you dont have that patch in grid mode).
...thought about it a bit now, and got this idea:
ableton-like track states?
means: if you place a new patch in seq mode, this will automatically generate a new state in a track-individual conductor. further in seq mode you place instances of track states (so if you eg. right click a track in seq mode you can choose from all according track states you have made in grid mode).
a track state contains: current patch active in grid mode (see+tweak the controls) + the setting of the vst rack.
display tracks: a conductor-type list that shows up when u select the track in grid mode - or all track states are always present like in ableton.
track states would not be the same as the vst rack.
probably I am totally unclear, sorry
-> my suggestion is that we dont need single windows. track states would be common for both grid and sequencer mode.
Statistics: Posted by amiga909 — 28 Aug 2008, 17:07
]]>
But I'm sure others will disagree
k
Statistics: Posted by kara — 28 Aug 2008, 15:50
]]>
- one for the grid
- one for the patch
- one for the sequencer
what do you think?
Statistics: Posted by senso — 28 Aug 2008, 15:24
]]>