From: Tim E. R. <ter...@ro...> - 2011-06-03 23:36:03
|
On June 3, 2011 08:52:52 am Florian Jung wrote: > also here, i'd like to get more answers, especially from tim :) > i am aware of the backward-compatibility problem, but that can be fixed. > i think, few songs really use clone parts with different lengths, and > these songs will still work; only that their clones may get splitted > into multiple clones, but i don't think this is a major problem. > especially not, if this allows to greatly simplify muse's behaviour :) I guess I can't really argue with the idea of keeping all clone parts the same length. Seems reasonable in my mind so far, will shout if I discover otherwise. When you resize a clone, all other clones will have to change size too. Which brings up that nasty issue of erasing notes if the part is shrunk. You know, actually I'm tending to lean towards keeping the hidden notes and drawing the right edge of the part 'jagged' (I like that one!) or 'discoloured' as we discussed. My thinking here is: I hate to erase anything which a user took time and effort to enter. Like long controller graphs or long midi parts. I'd rather keep them around if possible. (Sure, I'm violating that now but just thinking if we should reverse it...) You may notice I installed a 'clone chain' system to make it much easier to iterate all clones, given one of them, rather than having to search through all tracks and their parts looking for clones. Ask if you need more info on this. I had this crazy idea: What if some day we allow notes to be drawn /without/ parts, and then let the user draw parts /around/ the notes, as if they were sort of permanent 'selection' rectangles. But alas, for now one needs a part to even draw them in. A few users like Geoff suggested that the pianoroll simply be one long continuous roll. I have to admit when I came to Linux from Windows and Cakewalk, and saw these 'parts' in MusE and Rosegarden, it was a bit weird. But of course, now I know parts are very useful. They represent 'sections' which can be moved, copied, pasted etc. Imagine if we let the user draw them at their own will, /around/ notes. A part 'contains' notes, yes, but who says the jelly beans have to actually be in the jar? He he... Well, it's a long way off but just an idea... Tim. > > greetings > flo > > Am 29.05.2011 14:44, schrieb Robert Jonsson: > > Hi Florian, > > > > 2011/5/29 Florian Jung<flo...@we...>: > >> Hi > >> > >> i find the fact, that if you resize a clones part, the other clone > >> doesn't get resized, pretty unintuitive; i find it even more unintuitive > >> that then there are "hidden" events, which are stored in the eventlist, > >> but not shown (except in my score editor, bug xD). > >> > >> and i find it really strange that if you resize a non-clones track to a > >> too-small size, the "too-much" events get erased. > >> if you resize a clone, they get not erased but only hidden > >> > >> > >> i think, we should stick to one way: and i think we should stick to the > >> "also resize part-clones"-way > >> > >> this is simply much more intuitive for the user, as he expects a "clone" > >> behave, yeah, like a clone, and not like only a part with the same > >> eventlist; also, hidden stuff isn't good at all, as most users don't > >> know about this, or simply don't think about it, and then get confused, > >> or huge files with unneccessary events. > >> or glitches if they extend a part, expect it be empty, but it isn't > >> > >> > >> in contrast, when resizing a part also resizes its clones and erases > >> events, this may be a thing worth to note; i think, when doing this, a > >> dialog should inform the user about this changed behaviour; of course, > >> there is a "don't show again"-checkbox. > >> > >> changing the behaviour involves a small change to loading files, as we > >> need to detect now-impossible parts (clones with different length), and > >> we need to split them (into the cloned beginning which is the same, and > >> then the extended sub-part of the longer). this will also involve some > >> warning, that there may be a loss of hidden events. > >> > >> > >> i know that this is really new behaviour. but we should not argue like > >> "this was always the way we've done it, we'll do it still that way > >> today!". > >> > >> > >> i'd change this, if you consider this a good idea. > >> > >> please discuss (or simply agree ;) ) > > > > I use clones quite a lot actually, for drums mainly, and what you > > write above has kind of already been true for me in spirit so I forsee > > no big problems. My clones are always the same size so I think this > > change will be good. > > > > There is the issue with old songs if anyone has taken advantage of > > this fact. I see you are suggesting to split the parts into a clone > > bit and an "extended bit" ? > > May I offer that we do the reverse and only the longest clones, e.g. > > the "full clones" are kept as clones the others are converted to > > normal parts (with a dialog warning), with the extra events removed ? > > > > Regards, > > Robert |