v7.34+dev0310 - March 10 2025

[AZpercussion]

Originally Posted by deeb

I really don’t see the point, or I perceive 100% differently. Also you assuming to many things IMO, or again I just see things totally differently

Put off extra things. What we have in the rest:
Track B is a child track
Track D is NOT a child track

So the have to be displayed different.
Why it matters? - Because of signal flow.

[deeb]

Originally Posted by AZpercussion

Put off extra things. What we have in the rest:
Track B is a child track
Track D is NOT a child track

So the have to be displayed different.
Why it matters? - Because of signal flow.

Think in “hide track” use case. Signal flow is irrelevant since it’s hidden. It’s the same with pinned tracks - the track is hidden from its original position. Making an indicator could be nice but the root Problem IMO is that visually indentation is misleading and the routing logic is also not visually kept and makes it worst because it misleads.

Unless the pinned indicator is a kind of visual proxy of the collapsed original track - which I am not sure if too complex for reaper tradition/eco system but still would not solve the hidden tracks misleading issue I previously referred.

[AZpercussion]

Originally Posted by deeb

which I am not sure if too complex for reaper tradition/eco system but still would not solve the hidden tracks misleading issue I previously referred.

The hidden track issue also would be solved, why not?
And what exactly too complex, what rules it breaks?

I think that thin rectangle with a tooltip isn't something complex.
The rule is simple: if there is visible track with hidden or pinned parent one, the indicator lane appears above first of such visible child track.

[heda]

Originally Posted by schwa

I'm not sure this behavior has changed compared to the released version. That action zooms all tracks and respects the setting in Preferences > Appearance > Zoom/Scroll/Offset > Vertical zoom center.

ahh that's right. all good. I was testing on a new portable installation and didn't remember that setting.

[deeb]

Originally Posted by AZpercussion

The hidden track issue also would be solved, why not?
And what exactly too complex, what rules it breaks?

I think that thin rectangle with a tooltip isn't something complex.
The rule is simple: if there is visible track with hidden or pinned parent one, the indicator lane appears above first of such visible child track.

Ok. Well I don’t know if is simple or complex but Honestly I wouldn’t like that approach for both: pinned or hidden tracks. IMO is an indication that has no meaning or useful for me. The way I see indentation should be as I told - it’s not wrong the way I see.

Having thought further about this:

Originally Posted by deeb

A
.B
..C
D

Pinned A:
A
———
B
.C
D

Invisible A:
B
.C
D

Invisible B:
A
.C
D

Originally Posted by AZpercussion

Put off extra things. What we have in the rest:
Track B is a child track
Track D is NOT a child track

So the have to be displayed different.

Track B is a child track which parent is hidden, so it makes sense to be displayed in the lowest level since its parent is hidden. And since it's hidden "parent" indentation should be disappear, because identation is "part of the parent", so should not be left visible.

Track D is NOT a child track, and what is the issue? I don't see why they have to be displayed different. They are tracks and that's it. Parentes are hidden so they can be displayed in the lowest level "of what is visible"

Originally Posted by AZpercussion

Why it matters? - Because of signal flow.

I don't think that is a valid point because per example if you change the folder routing "Parent send off" you are changing the signal flow anyway, so nothing new. The folder structure is not the routing, instead is a visual organization of tracks with optional routings.

[AZpercussion]

Originally Posted by deeb

I don't think that is a valid point because per example if you change the folder routing "Parent send off" you are changing the signal flow anyway, so nothing new. The folder structure is not the routing, instead is a visual organization of tracks with optional routings.

Ah, here is your point!
But for me it's an exception case.
As I see in practice, not only my practice, but my colleagues and many people in russian telegram chat, also different youtube channels, the most of the time parent send is ON.
And it's designed for this purpose, tree structure is intuitive and it's much easier to use it as is than broke it.

[deeb]

Originally Posted by AZpercussion

Ah, here is your point!
But for me it's an exception case.
As I see in practice, not only my practice, but my colleagues and many people in russian telegram chat, also different youtube channels, the most of the time parent send is ON.
And it's designed for this purpose, tree structure is intuitive and it's much easier to use it as is than broke it.

Yes for me too but it’s optional in reaper if master send is on or off per track or by default. I have it on because it’s very convenient and when I need to do a parallel/aux track I change it to off. The point is that what is lowest folder level is not necessarily what is being send to master. That’s a wrong assumption. In this sense folders are a visual organizational of tracks and not a signal flow. And in the context of pin and hidden tracks this is similar and I think what I purpose/request earlier would be great and what makes most sense IMO.

[AZpercussion]

Originally Posted by deeb

In this sense folders are a visual organizational of tracks and not a signal flow.

And this wrong assumption too.
So, look, we have to ways how folders can be used, and the pinned tracks and hidden tracks have to work well with both variants of use.

I don't see the troubles with such pointer-separator if tracks are not sent to the master, it just became less meaningful.

But if tracks are sent to the master the changed indentation will report wrong info for the user.

So we should choose that indication variant which has less cons in both cases (are tracks sent to the master on not).

[deeb]

Originally Posted by AZpercussion

And this wrong assumption too.

Why wrong? It is like this in everything where concept of folders is used. Folders is visual organization of childs and parents. In reaper Routing organization/management is defined by using routing matrix.

[AZpercussion]

Originally Posted by deeb

Folders is visual organization of childs and parents.

Not only visual. And in Reaper it has huge significance. This is one of Reaper's strongest differences.
So we can't ignore it.

[deeb]

Originally Posted by AZpercussion

Not only visual. And in Reaper it has huge significance. This is one of Reaper's strongest differences.
So we can't ignore it.

Why not visual only if It does not represent a signal flow?

Reaper has huge routing options not represented by the folder at all.
Example:
A
.B (no master send)

You can’t say B signal goes by A. B is a child of A and that’s it, signal flow is not represented by the folder.

Originally Posted by AZpercussion

But if tracks are sent to the master the changed indentation will report wrong info for the user.

That’s because you use folders with no different routings other then master send on, so you assume folder structure is the signal flow, which is true unless different routing is done.

[AZpercussion]

If it MAY BE true, it has to be considered.
We should to put attention to it. Especially, if it is true very often.

We need to find a such visual representation, which does not contradict with different variants of the project structure.

And you proposal - change indentation level - may contradict.
My proposal - separator line for tcp area with a tooltip - doesn't contradict. It just can be less meaningful.

If my suggestion can contradict with project structure and give wrong representation - point me, please.

[deeb]

Originally Posted by AZpercussion

If it MAY BE true, it has to be considered.
We should to put attention to it. Especially, if it is true very often.

We need to find a such visual representation, which does not contradict with different variants of the project structure.

And you proposal - change indentation level - may contradict.
My proposal - separator line for tcp area with a tooltip - doesn't contradict. It just can be less meaningful.

If my suggestion can contradict with project structure and give wrong representation - point me, please.

It’s not for me to judge others wishes. But your suggestion as far as I understand does contradicts with my view because when I hide a track or pin - it’s indentation is part of it so I don’t want it to be displayed because it clutters the view and as currently is, gives misleading parent / child relations.

I am not sure about your suggestion can you make a simple mock-up?

[AZpercussion]

Originally Posted by deeb

But your suggestion as far as I understand does contradicts with my view because when I hide a track or pin - it’s indentation is part of it so I don’t want it to be displayed because it clutters the view and as currently is, gives misleading parent / child relations.

So, I see that the current Reaper's implementation contradicts to your view too.
If we a talking about visual representation and not about changing the basics, we should to accept that folder structure does influence on routing.
Even if parent sent check-box is unchecked, because it is not hard, it can be checked again, and user should know where the signal will go to.

I think it could be different if any track could be sent to the master directly, but it's another story, it's out of scope I think.

Originally Posted by deeb

I am not sure about your suggestion can you make a simple mock-up?

My suggestion is simple.
Don't change the current structure, but add a visual separator, which can be a part of first visible child track if it's parent is hidden or pinned.

[deeb]

Originally Posted by AZpercussion

So, I see that the current Reaper's implementation contradicts to your view too.

Absolutely. Something wrong that needs a solution.

Originally Posted by AZpercussion

If we a talking about visual representation and not about changing the basics, we should to accept that folder structure does influence on routing.

Even if parent sent check-box is unchecked, because it is not hard, it can be checked again, and user should know where the signal will go to.

For me basics includes having "send to master OFF", so i don't personally agree with that statement or rely on folder structure to be informed about the routing flow - there are so many variants, that i don't think it is a good idea to make all the development around one.

Originally Posted by AZpercussion

I think it could be different if any track could be sent to the master directly, but it's another story, it's out of scope I think.

but any track can be routed to any track

Originally Posted by AZpercussion

My suggestion is simple.
Don't change the current structure, but add a visual separator, which can be a part of first visible child track if it's parent is hidden or pinned.
...

Thank you. yeah I see what you mean. For my personal preference i think this clutters the view and imposes a visual logic, which does not benefit flexibility for different use cases. Hidden is not a really hidden. Pin is not really a pin. Is more like a Pin and collapse original and a collapse instead of hide. I am sorry but i just do have a different preference. Doesn't mean i don't consider your preference as valid one and Reaper is all about options.

[AZpercussion]

Originally Posted by deeb

but any track can be routed to any track

Except the master one)

[deeb]

Originally Posted by AZpercussion

Except the master one)

Master track is not a track in reaper concept. It is a master channel with a form of track. but anyway, in the way i see this is irrelevant. There is so many different uses for folders that i don't see the point.