Maybe one could allow automation to change all linked knobs instead.
Stian Jørgensrud wrote
> I just found out LMMS supports MIDI automation after all, for volume, pan
> and pitch at least. Now, in the file I got all the instrument's pan and
> volume knobs were connected to one automation track.
I just found out LMMS supports MIDI automation after all, for volume, pan and
pitch at least. Now, in the file I got all the instrument's pan and volume
knobs were connected to one automation track. That is why I asked on this
thread, cause I didn't remember if that were going to be prohibited, or
On 4 October 2014 09:01, Vesa wrote:
> With per-track automations, it would be as easy as just connecting the
> track and bam, all patterns connected. One more entry on the pros-list.
>From a usability standpoint, this is a no-brainer IMO...
+1
Could we have multiple independent automations p
Well, I just again ran into this bug where you open a project and some
automation patterns get randomly disconnected from their models...
This time, I had 5 automation tracks, each with more than 10 patterns,
get disconnected, forcing me to connect each of those patterns again
individually...
And
On 09/25/2014 12:22 AM, Stian Jørgensrud wrote:
> Yes, but I suddenly realized how little work there seems to be to implement
> the tempo track. It is the same as the global automation of tempo, so
> disabling the ability to connect automation tracks to the tempo, and then
> show the global tempo a
Yes, but I suddenly realized how little work there seems to be to implement
the tempo track. It is the same as the global automation of tempo, so
disabling the ability to connect automation tracks to the tempo, and then
show the global tempo automation in Song Editor, that's it..
I like your other
On 09/24/2014 12:00 AM, Stian Jørgensrud wrote:
> About the tempo-track idea. Global automation of the tempo is the same,
No. The entire point of tempo track is that there is one place and one
place only where tempo can be automated. So that we can easily look up
the tempo at any point in time.
About the tempo-track idea. Global automation of the tempo is the same,
starts at bar 1 in the song, only that it does not show up in the Song
Editor?
--
View this message in context:
http://linux-multimedia-studio-lmms.996328.n3.nabble.com/Let-s-rethink-automation-tracks-tp10416p10446.html
Sen
On 09/23/2014 10:46 PM, HDDigitizerMusic wrote:
> Just a thought, not sure if this is too hard or not but, this might be good
> as a feature you can enable and disable in the settings area.
Nope, not going to happen...
-
I find the current automation tracks pretty useful to me. If you right click
them, you can see what they're connected to under a drop down list. The only
problem with that is it only says stuff like "Reverb>wet/dry" which would be
nice to have clarification like "(Name of instrument)>Reverb>wet/dry
On 09/22/2014 04:26 AM, Bill Y. wrote:
> The only counter point I could see is if some one wanted to implement
> math interactions between automation tracks. AKA you create a "wave"
> in one automation track and wanted it to add to or subtract from
> another automation tracks "wave" to create a ble
The only counter point I could see is if some one wanted to implement math
interactions between automation tracks. AKA you create a "wave" in one
automation track and wanted it to add to or subtract from another
automation tracks "wave" to create a blend of the two. Currently new
automation overrid
So, the only thing you are saying is that it is easier and more logical this
way, and I agree, it is. Go ahead and do it :) Cause consistency is the
keyword here? I can't see how this will solve any bugs?
diiz wrote
> Ok, so here's again something I've been thinking about lately. And
> which, aga
Tres Finocchiaro wrote
> I don't think I've done that before. :)
> tinfo/lmms-devel
And if you do, you will be 'midly' confused one month down the road, so
remember to make a note about it :p
--
View this message in context:
http://linux-multimedia-studio-lmms.996328.n3.nabble.com/Let-s-reth
On Sep 20, 2014 12:14 PM, "Vesa" wrote:
>
> On 09/20/2014 04:44 PM, Tres Finocchiaro wrote:
> >
> > > Well, no, why would it? You'd just connect both pitches to one
> > automation track, and use an automation there.
> >
> > Great. No objections then.
> >
>
> And even if we were to remove the poss
On 09/20/2014 04:44 PM, Tres Finocchiaro wrote:
>
> > Well, no, why would it? You'd just connect both pitches to one
> automation track, and use an automation there.
>
> Great. No objections then.
>
And even if we were to remove the possibility to connect an automation
to multiple knobs, you coul
> Well, no, why would it? You'd just connect both pitches to one
automation track, and use an automation there.
Great. No objections then.
--
Slashdot TV. Video for Nerds. Stuff that Matters.
http://pubads.g.doubleclick
On 09/20/2014 03:20 PM, Tres Finocchiaro wrote:
>
> I find instances where I want identical pitch bends on two tracks at
> the same time. If your proposal prevents this from happening on a
> single automation track, then I'd be against it.
>
Well, no, why would it? You'd just connect both pitches
I find instances where I want identical pitch bends on two tracks at the
same time. If your proposal prevents this from happening on a single
automation track, then I'd be against it.
--
Slashdot TV. Video for Nerds. Stu
When opining a project made with a version that use the old Automation
tracks, every Automation block is put in its own Automation Track...
Il 20/09/2014 13:57, musikbear ha scritto:
> diiz wrote
>> - backwards compat might be a bit tricky to implement (should be doable
>> though)
> ... tha
diiz wrote
> - backwards compat might be a bit tricky to implement (should be doable
> though)
... that one tricky -me think
(The able doing cant accomendate for all peeps different usages of
aut-tracks -how should it? -You cant figure out whitch library of craziness
they have utilized :)
-But
I actually had different ideas about the future of automation tracks
(The track is made and /then /you can attach it to different knobs)
But this seems fine too, but for one thing: some kind of projects would
have a lot of new tracks, and this would lead to confusion, even if you
put the tracks
On 09/20/2014 12:08 PM, bubblegummer wrote:
> If the automation tracks are going to be collapsible, and then be
> sub-grouped under the corresponding instrument- / bb-track, this will
> be awesome!
Collapsible tracks may be implemented some time in the future, but not
immediately. As for sub-group
If the automation tracks are going to be collapsible, and then be sub-grouped
under the corresponding instrument- / bb-track, this will be awesome!
On 20. September 2014 10:29:47 MESZ, Vesa wrote:
]Ok, so here's again something I've been thinking about lately. And
]which, again, may or may not
Ok, so here's again something I've been thinking about lately. And
which, again, may or may not lead to things eventually actually getting
done... ;)
See, there's currently a sort of inconsistency in the paradigms of the
different tracks. Instrument-, bb- and sampletracks all work with a
"per-trac
25 matches
Mail list logo
