|You are logged in as a guest. ( logon | register )|
| feature requests|
Jump to page : 1
Now viewing page 1 [25 messages per page]
|View previous thread :: View next thread|
|reViSiT - Tracking Software for VST hosts -> Testing & Development||Message format|
|I would love a Fast Tracker 2 themed version of revist. I keep going to use the key commands from it and always preferred its design.|
I'd be surprised if I was the only person who felt this way. If you could possibly see your way to doing this, or opening it up to allow skins or even customizable shortcuts I'd be very grateful.
Secondly, I was wondering if there might be someway to automatically sync the patterns in reViSiT to some sort of place holder patterns in Cubase 4 (or any other sequencer for that matter) so that you might arrange the reViSiT patterns with the sequencer itself?
Also, I find it often crashes Cubase 4. It doesn't always do so at the same point. I'll try to take note of the circumstances around the crashes. This happens every time I use it though, so I'd be curious to see if other people using Cubase 4 are having the same problems (I didn't seen Cubase 4 mentioned explicitly on the forum).
Regardless I'm thrilled to see you're continuing to work on this marvelous project.
Edited by DioCoN 2007-11-29 11:28 PM
DioCoN - 2007-11-30 12:23 AM
Secondly, I was wondering if there might be someway to automatically sync the patterns in reViSiT to some sort of place holder patterns in Cubase 4 (or any other sequencer for that matter) so that you might arrange the reViSiT patterns with the sequencer itself
Yes, having the patters to be controlled by the host would be cool. Why not use program change... and have an option to use order list or midi program change defining which patter is played.
|As for FT2.. dunno, I always was under the impression that over the years oodles o' FT2 clones or "based-on-FT2" trackers have been made, including midi out support. It was IT that no-one payed attention to. As for layout, I think FT2 is so different from IT's and Revisit's layout that it's not just a matter of skinning. Pattern order was some small canvas in FT2 on the main screen, and in IT/Rev it's a separate full screen with additional global pan/vol info.|
Welcome to the party and thanks for the feedback!
The FT2/IT dichotomy has come up before. In addition to CS_TBL's points, which mean that any attempt is simply likely to alienate both IT- and FT2-"style" users, by not being providing a 100% accurate clone for either, I'll say what I always say;
The purpose of reViSiT is not to clone IT or provide IT users with an upgrade path, it's simply to provide the best interface possible. To this end, reViSiT took IT as the starting point, judging it to be a superb interface (see here). However, few features and shortcuts have been arbitrarily inherited from IT. There'll typically be a sensible reason why they are used in reViSiT, that corresponds to the sensible reason Jeffrey Lim coded them for IT in the first place. However, you'll find shortcut keys that are new / have changed, as well as a lot of interface modifications. Similarly, you might find features that are more FT2 in nature, simply because FT2 had the better design for that feature (e.g. an aesthetically pleasing interface!). Hopefully, users will also notice lots of innovations that are unique to reViSiT too...!
reViSiT is about attracting new users to tracking, so the priority is to make features intuitive, accessible or easily-learnable to people without prior knowledge - making reViSiT a VST plugin was aimed at making tracking more accessible to sequencer users. However, one of the fundamentals in learning to use trackers expertly is building up "habits". Unfortunately, FT2 users will have to learn to break a few of theirs before getting comfortable with reViSiT.
Indeed, I'm actually considering using the FT2/IT2 interfaces as part of my PhD research to scientifically evaluate how different interfaces can affect the productivity and creativity of the user. The feature sets of each program were very similar, theoretically affording more-or-less the same amount of expression, but the different interfaces might have encourage certain working methods that favoured different musical styles, sonorities and techniques. Did the use of effects differ between programs? Is the density of pattern data higher in either? What proportion of the instrument settings was varied from the default? And so on...
As for MIDI-triggered pattern playback, this has been on the cards for a while, but not an initial priority. Quite possibly, it will find its way into the v1.0 Pro release, as it occurs that there is very little to appeal to VSTi/MIDI-only users in the current pro offerings (currently, audio routing and surround sound).
I'm really, really eager to hear more about your Cubase 4 crashing problems. I know that CS_TBL uses Cubase 4, and he hasn't yet reported any stability problems. Similarly, I test in Cubase SX3 and haven't had problems - but then don't have the time for long sessions.
|hold it.. I'm still on Cubase sx3. I assumed you were/are using that, and for bughunting/compatibility reasons I want to stay compatible with your config. Should I migrate to cubase4?|
Edited by CS_TBL 2007-12-01 3:41 PM
|My mind must be going. 'Don't know where I got the idea that you were using Cubase 4! |
Thus, there could be a compatibility issue with Cubase 4 - anyone out there using it?
Problem is, I don't have either Cubase 4, or the pennies to upgrade to Cubase 4, and Steinberg don't have a demo version - so testing is gonne be difficult!
Perhaps the Music Faculty has one I can try...
|btw, as for your "not cloning IT" remark.. exactly 'what' defines IT? Or more specific: how is IT essentially different from other trackers, and even modern software (I'm not hinting towards sound quality, NNA's etc.)? I'd say it's |
- the basic navigation
- no crammed screens with everything and its mother on it
- no tiny fonts or artistic choices, everything is done for practical usage
For the rest: effects are all, or partly based on, typical MOD effects, NNA's are nice, but are practically comparable with me controlling a VSTi.
So, atm Revisit is *very* compatible with the essentials of IT, if you ask me, and as long as these 3 essentials will remain, I'll ever consider it be a clone of IT. A key might be different in Revisit here and there, but if so: it's not an essential key. The power in IT came from entering notes, block functions, F5..F8 for playback/stop etc. etc. The power in IT came from clear layouts without trying to cram everything onto one screen (I never liked this in Fasttracker). The power from IT came from its clear DOS font and easy color schemes. IT never tried to be an arty tool or anything. One could say that IT is to music what Norton Commander was to managing DOS: fast and to the point.
I actually had quite some discussions with some TBL coders during the days of the scene, about FT2 vs IT2. Everything they ever said was: "IT2 looks ugly, FT2 looks nice". Naturally what they meant was: "grmbl! We already have an FT2 player, and now we have to make an IT2 player!"
Edited by CS_TBL 2007-12-11 11:45 PM
|Jump to page : 1 |
Now viewing page 1 [25 messages per page]
|Search this forum|
Printer friendly version
E-mail a link to this thread
|(Delete all cookies set by this site)|