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

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

quote:

---

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.

---

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

code:
 



a hopeful attempt at visualizing [JAZ]'s idea, corrections appreciated

lines are too sparse, but the best i could do



 ***************************************************************************




sequence



## 00.    01.    

00 pier24

01 pier24

02 pier25

03 pier25 effec1



pattern



pier24

   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.

[Taika-Kim]
> 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

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!).

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

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

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)

__________________

www.quantinuitymusic.com

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 1 XXXXXXXXXX
Pattern 2 XXX X XX X
etc...
Like FlStudio.

__________________
Site: http://gravity0.site90.com

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

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

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