-psycledelics- (http://psycle.pastnotecut.org/index.php)
|- TECH BOARD (http://psycle.pastnotecut.org/board.php?boardid=2)
|-- Multipattern & Sequencer suggestion (http://psycle.pastnotecut.org/threadid.php?boardid=2&threadid=1683)

From [JAZ] on 29.04.2005, 21:20:


(I knew i had a double post...)

<[JAZ]> Pa pi pa pa pa pi pa.... ;D

From [JAZ] on 29.04.2005, 21:21:


Original by Taika-Kim
About multimachine patterns: Yes, we could eliminate the machine column and thus save some space if the patterns were machine-dependent.
But I still fancy the idea of being able to see different patterns side by side somehow, to make the whole composition process more visual. Often I need to create some interaction between the bass, beats and the melodies and this would be very hard to do if I could only see one track at a time.

I Really can NOT UNDERSTANT WHY does people NOT understand MY WORDS, and even COME suggesting MY SUGGESTION!


Your suggestion is exactly what is planned, and actually what has been planned for two years already. I DO NOT LIKE a pattern to be linked to ONE SINGLE machine. And the SCREENSHOT does show EXACTLY several patterns NEXT to the other!

I WILL say it one more time, and I HOPE it is clear now:

A) Adding : MultiCOLUMN sequence (equals possibility of more than one pattern at a time).

B) Removing : machine COLUMN from the pattern, and setting the value PER TRACK/CHANNEL ( Channel not equal to pattern).

C) Adding a volume column in the place of the machine column.

No more. No less, conceptually.

Ps: Taika-Kim : it is not a flame against you. But it has been said three times in this same post...

<[JAZ]> Pa pi pa pa pa pi pa.... ;D

From asdf on 30.04.2005, 04:01:



a hopeful attempt at visualizing [JAZ]'s idea, corrections appreciated
lines are too sparse, but the best i could do



## 00. 01.
00 pier24
01 pier24
02 pier25
03 pier25 effec1


01:bass 02:Hat 41:delay
not vol par value not vol par value not vol par value
00 c-3 40 .. .... ... .. .. .... ... .. 12 0002
01 ... .. .. .... c-6 40 .. .... ... .. 12 0004
02 d-3 40 .. .... ... .. .. .... ... .. 12 0006
03 ... .. .. .... c-6 40 .. .... ... .. 12 0008
04 e-3 40 .. .... ... .. .. .... ... .. 12 000a
05 ... .. .. .... c-6 20 .. .... ... .. 12 000c
06 f-3 40 .. .... ... .. .. .... ... .. 12 000e
07 ... .. .. .... c-6 20 .. .... ... .. 12 0010


sequencer shows three patterns: pier24, pier25 and effec1
pier24 is shown at pattern editor

previously made psycle songs would load
they would look like they only used sequence track 00.

From asdf on 30.04.2005, 14:08:


> and they could then just be placed horizontally to make them play
> in conjunction... This would be also easy to visualize if we forced
> the pattern lengths to go in multiples of 16 or even 32...

this would both break compability and be quite limiting
in my opinion sequence track 00. should be "master track" and other "slaves"
it would be left for composer to make sure that patterns have suitable lenghts

From gdl on 21.07.2005, 18:50:


Really, I may be a bit slow understanding things, but why should be the machine column removed/substituted? Having a track-machine bond is equivalent to a machine column. The only advantage is freeing the machine column for other purposes, the main disadvantage is that you have to change the current meaning of Psycle columns.

On the other hand, if you want to play several machines in the same pattern without machine column, the same amount of tracks must be spent. Let's say that you want to compose a percussion pattern. Suppose that it is quite complex and you need eight machines, which means eight tracks. This could be a waste of resources if some of these machines are only played once in a pattern (yes, that cymbal!).

From [JAZ] on 21.07.2005, 21:37:


I am doing that already, putting each sample type to a column (yes, that once in a pattern cymbal).

And yes,the space is for something: the volume column, although in next version columns will be editable (being able to have variable number of those).

To determine if the column is useful alone or can be substituted in a track basis, we can only check why we would use it different *machines* in the same track, and if it makes sense to put it separatedly.

In other words, we are not making 4channel .MOD's.

<[JAZ]> Pa pi pa pa pa pi pa.... ;D

From gdl on 23.07.2005, 10:46:


Anyway, using so many tracks could make it difficult to see them all at a glance. Something quite useful IMHO.

From TranceMyriad on 24.07.2005, 02:35:


JAZ, what would be good is if we could name tracks within a pattern - perhaps even some track-hiding functions, with a thin placeholder in between to make it obvious that the particular track is hidden (unlike excel, for example)



From Mattias on 01.09.2005, 18:40:

I have two Ideas for pattern sequecing.
I think 999 are enough for a sequencer and so. Every line is a pattern editable with the Psycle 1 pattern editor.
Like this

Pattern 2 XXX X XX X
Like FlStudio.

Site: http://gravity0.site90.com

ACIDPlanet: http://www.acidplanet.com/artist.asp?songs=753767&T=7713

From [JAZ] on 01.09.2005, 21:28:


I don't like much the FLoops concept for sequencing. It is good only for a small number of patterns, else you can't see what is really playing. I find much more logical a MIDI-sequencer-like sequencing, because you see what comes in and what doesn't (as instruments).
Knowing which pattern is going to play, in a multipattern concept, and having, like 50 patterns (which can't be seen all in fullscreen), is inadequate, IMO.

<[JAZ]> Pa pi pa pa pa pi pa.... ;D

From Mattias on 02.09.2005, 11:58:

You're right. I didn't think about this... If I have another idea. I'll post here...

Site: http://gravity0.site90.com

ACIDPlanet: http://www.acidplanet.com/artist.asp?songs=753767&T=7713

Powered by: Burning Board 1.0 Beta 4.5eEnglish Translation by AnnaFan
Copyright 2001 by WoltLab