From: Florian J. <flo...@we...> - 2011-06-03 12:47:34
|
Am 03.06.2011 11:03, schrieb Robert Jonsson: > This sounds quite reasonable but I strongly vote against removing the > template feature that currently exists. > why? i assume your two reasons are the reason stated below and "many users are used to the templates; don't confuse the old users by removing the templates". if that's the case: the "templates" will still exist, but will be implemented differently "default" won't be a *.med file any more, but "default" will be a preset for the tool which creates all the tracks for you. the old users won't habve to learn anything new, but CAN use the new stuff. > It can be moved to second tab in this proposed session manager, there > are some of us who actually use it from time to time ;) > yeah, these buttons may be moved into another tab maybe... but i think we should remove the template.med thingy. Am 03.06.2011 11:08, schrieb Robert Jonsson: > 2011/6/3 Geoff Beasley<ge...@la...>: > >> multi-media productions are never the same twice in my experience. you >> need a tool layer that can do the work of configuring muse the way you >> want, with muse doing the majority of the work for you. >> > Indeed but there are some things that connect to the physical world, > so to speak, which can be automated greatly with templates. > > Geoff, aren't you running on two different computers? > Even if it were possible to quickly create all the outputs you wanted > for Sampletank I can't imagine how to create the wizard that > automatically connects all these outputs so you can mix them on the > other computer. > the assistant could offer various options: * connect all to the physical output (that is, jack output port) * create one jack output for each track, but don't connect. lash can probably do this then. * create five out channels connected to "abstract device A", and four channels connected to "abstract device B", then ten outputs which remain unconnected, creating their own jack port this can be done easily, and as that assistant remembers your last setting, or allows you to store them (here you have the templates again. but non-med-file-templates!). a word to "abstract devices": maybe we should also introduce this feature: you don't connect your ports to some physical output, but to "virtual" outputs, named, for example, "master", "amp1", "amp2", "headphones". as the actual outputs vary from machine to machine, the outputs will still be connected correctly on every machine (given that you initially defined what "master" etc. is) this would also allow one to edit some piece of music on his laptop with only one audio out; the muse installed there will simply connect all virtual ports to the same, and single physical out > For templates this only is a problem the first time, after that it just works. > for a properly done assistant, it's the same, but much more powerful what do you think about this? i understand that the templates have their benefits, and i also know that a badly implemented assistant will be harder to use than the templates. but if that assistant is done right, it is much more powerful than the old templates. and btw, even if we keep the templates, we should really create a per-user-template directory. if that dir doesn't exists, muse automatically creates it (or asks), and copies all templates from /usr/share to there greetings flo |