On Sat, 2008-05-17 at 18:44 +0200, Ichthyostega wrote: > Hi Thorsten, > > your response is somewhat confusing for me -- basically I don't know > if you are a user or a developer.
Think of me as something in between ;) > If you are mainly a user, you should > consider that for implementing things, we need to be 100% precise, up > to the last tiny and boring detail you never even wanted to know it > existed. "..should allow controlling several things with one automation > track" is by far to fuzzy! There seems to be a compelling idea buried > within this approach, but we'd need to nail down how each of this > "things" can be attached to this common automation. And, moreover, > what to do if your "things" are moved and rearranged? Leave the > automation where it is? Extract a part of the automation and move > it alongside with the "thing". And is this really helpful for the > user? In the end you would have a nodal system with free routing of audio, video and automation (perhaps several types of the later). Tracks and busses would just be wrappers/proxies. Lets say automation tracks have outputs and everything that can be automated has inputs (could be more than 1 type, though). For convenience, audio tracks have a menu to add automation tracks that are already wired to gain, pan, etc. There can be 1:n connections just like with audio routing. There should be plugins for at least simple math operations. Regions would have their own i/o, automatically connected to the i/o of their track. Regarding moving stuff around, there could be a locking feature (lock point A on track 1 to point B on track 2). Lots of fun because you might want to express the relative distance in wall clock time, frames or bars:beats ... > We were talking about design. This mandates us to restrain ourselves > from "I can do this and that" and step back. Rather, the question is, > to find a general approach such that the greatest number of issues > and problems just "falls into place", rather then necessitating > the invention of clever solutions for this and that. Oh, I'm all for solving problems with the lowest number and complexity of concepts necessary to get the job done efficiently :) I wouldn't rule out making Ardour also work on a per object level. -- Thorsten Wilms thorwil's design for free software: http://thorwil.wordpress.com/ _______________________________________________ Cinelerra mailing list [email protected] https://init.linpro.no/mailman/skolelinux.no/listinfo/cinelerra
