Old 04-08-2014, 06:10 AM   #41
aurelien
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 21
Default

Yes an option in the TCP would be perfect, just like in Sonar, you can customize the TCP.

It's really useful to have an overview of FX bins in the track view.
aurelien is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2014, 06:44 AM   #42
PaulRain
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 53
Default

to be honest I kind of agree with Giano...
PaulRain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2015, 01:36 AM   #43
rothchild
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 532
Default

The ability to have sends, fx and (better) fx parameters as configurable items on the TCP would pretty much complete Reaper for me. Let's hope it's this time.
rothchild is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2015, 02:27 AM   #44
paulheu
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 635
Default

Yes, not having this option limits my workflow quite a bit. With more work coming in having this option will be a determining factor in whether to go to the commercial license for Reaper or consider other options for me.

No illusions this matters one bit to the dev team, just sayin'
paulheu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2015, 03:27 AM   #45
rothchild
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 532
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aurelien View Post
Yes an option in the TCP would be perfect, just like in Sonar, you can customize the TCP.

It's really useful to have an overview of FX bins in the track view.
Yes, I'd forgotten this, but it was possible to drag and drop TCP items around in Sonar (certainly pre version X) it was a very neat feature. My leaving Sonar coincided with them moving to a more mixer oriented paradigm.

Having inserts, sends and better parameter controls in Reaper's TCP would IMO make it utterly unbeatable.
rothchild is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-2015, 02:54 AM   #46
loopa
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 207
Default

I would definitely want all the elements of the MCP and TCP should be available in both places

Cheers,
Loopa
loopa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2015, 04:31 AM   #47
kesman
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 3
Default

+1 for inserts on TCP. I believe it would help a lot of people in terms of workflow
kesman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2015, 01:14 PM   #48
bladlus
Human being with feelings
 
bladlus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Oslo
Posts: 29
Default

YES please! I'd really love it if this was implemented. Would be a huge workflow improvement for me when doing sound design, as I tend to leave the mixer dock closed and only work in the edit window.
bladlus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2015, 04:48 PM   #49
heda
Human being with feelings
 
heda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Spain
Posts: 4,788
Default

Before putting inserts in TCP, a couple of features to inserts in the MCP would be great:

Coloured Inserts
http://forum.cockos.com/showthread.php?t=119147

Improve the FX and Send Slot system
http://forum.cockos.com/showthread.php?t=98716
heda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2015, 01:36 PM   #50
CyberAP
Human being with feelings
 
CyberAP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 50
Default

That's the only thing that I need to get rid of the mixer view. Totally voting for this one!
CyberAP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2015, 01:25 AM   #51
noise_construct
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 1,566
Default

Strong +1 to this.

The only reason to keep the mixer visible during composition is to have reasonably direct access to instruments and effects, having the option to show them in TCP would free up so much screen space. (screens have more horizontal space than vertical)
noise_construct is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2015, 07:17 AM   #52
The_Nimaj
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: A city in GA
Posts: 103
Default

+1. Totally agree this would be useful
__________________
Faderport XT for WIN/OSX
If it sounds good, it IS good...unless, of course, it doesn't sound good.
The_Nimaj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2015, 09:41 AM   #53
Ozman
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 469
Default

You can just dock the mixer to the left of your tracks, and size it just enough to see one track at a time.
That's what I do.
Ozman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2015, 01:32 PM   #54
CyberAP
Human being with feelings
 
CyberAP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 50
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozman View Post
You can just dock the mixer to the left of your tracks, and size it just enough to see one track at a time.
That's what I do.
I do the same, but it's not convenient. Seeing inserts for all visible tracks is much more productive and consumes less space.
CyberAP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2015, 01:48 PM   #55
karbomusic
Human being with feelings
 
karbomusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 22,649
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CyberAP View Post
Seeing inserts for all visible tracks is much more productive and consumes less space.
How's that consume less space?
karbomusic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2015, 02:11 PM   #56
CyberAP
Human being with feelings
 
CyberAP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 50
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by karbomusic View Post
How's that consume less space?
Imagine a sidebar mixer for 10 tracks. And now the same with TCP inserts. Don't forget that mixer doubles information: faders, titles, buttons. All the same as in arrange window.
CyberAP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2015, 02:39 PM   #57
karbomusic
Human being with feelings
 
karbomusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 22,649
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CyberAP View Post
Imagine a sidebar mixer for 10 tracks. And now the same with TCP inserts. Don't forget that mixer doubles information: faders, titles, buttons. All the same as in arrange window.
But it only shows one track at a time the way I and Ozman describe so placing all the inserts on every TCP track would use far more space. I must be missing something though. Otherwise, I just right click the FX button which shows all the inserts anyway. It often doesn't double info for me because I'll decrease the TCP track size some which means I scroll less and the selected track is always right there on the left inspector style.


Last edited by karbomusic; 12-29-2015 at 03:19 PM.
karbomusic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2015, 03:37 PM   #58
noise_construct
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 1,566
Default

We're counting pixel width here- to display inserts in TCP for all tracks in visible arrangement takes as much space horizontally as it does for one MCP track docked to the side.

Most of the MCP is just redundant info and screen estate waste (when you are not mixing)
noise_construct is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2015, 03:49 PM   #59
karbomusic
Human being with feelings
 
karbomusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 22,649
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by noise_construct View Post

Most of the MCP is just redundant info and screen estate waste (when you are not mixing)
When you pull the inserts down to their lowest possible position it then gives you lots of inserts + routing etc. on the left so waste and redundancy are a minimum (see below). In such a case we'd make the assumption the user is arranging and mixing from the TCP (because playing with inserts falls under mixing) so there is no need for them to use the mixer alone. I'd more be into hiding the piece at the bottom left than cramming all those inserts onto the TCP track, then it would be more like an inspector:

karbomusic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2015, 04:33 PM   #60
noise_construct
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 1,566
Default

You still see only one track at a time. Compare that unrealistically massive pile of FX to the tracks, you could display 2-3 inserts and a few sends per each track without spending a single vertical pixel for FX.

There are other kinds of plugins than simple and basic audio effects. I'm mainly interested in the instruments on the tracks, but also MIDI fx and delays which I use before mixing.
noise_construct is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2015, 07:44 PM   #61
karbomusic
Human being with feelings
 
karbomusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 22,649
Default

Quote:
We're counting pixel width here-
Quote:
without spending a single vertical pixel for FX.


I'd like to see a mockup because I don't think I'm ready to buy it at this point simply because I'm not seeing the 'massive space savings' and 'much more productive' parts being actual yet.


Quote:
Compare that unrealistically massive pile of FX to the tracks
I did it that way on purpose because to show them in the TCP means real estate is going go fast (and we can't judge realistic by our own expectations) because the number of plugins people need will vary widely enough that placing inserts on the TCP will have the same problem that placing plugin controls on the TCP (which we already have) has now. I don't technically have a problem if someone wants to put them there anyway but it really needs to prove its merit IMHO sufficiently beyond what is already available.

Last edited by karbomusic; 12-29-2015 at 07:52 PM.
karbomusic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2015, 01:09 AM   #62
noise_construct
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 1,566
Default

Lol what?
noise_construct is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2015, 02:09 AM   #63
CyberAP
Human being with feelings
 
CyberAP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 50
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by karbomusic View Post


I'd like to see a mockup because I don't think I'm ready to buy it at this point simply because I'm not seeing the 'massive space savings' and 'much more productive' parts being actual yet.
Well, that's because you didn't read the thread.

http://forum.cockos.com/showpost.php...24&postcount=3

http://forum.cockos.com/showpost.php...5&postcount=25
CyberAP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2015, 08:38 AM   #64
karbomusic
Human being with feelings
 
karbomusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 22,649
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CyberAP View Post
Oh I read it.... over five years ago when it was originally posted. However, thanks for the reminder as it shows what I mentioned, no real savings in real estate. If it earns it's keep, fine but it needs to earn it and some of the comments I read when I saw the thread was revived aren't that accurate IMHO and it truly, really needs to be accurate to get proper attention. It's not that I have a problem with the idea at it's heart, it just needs to be accurate in reasoning when compared to what is already available.

Last edited by karbomusic; 12-30-2015 at 08:53 AM.
karbomusic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2015, 09:46 AM   #65
noise_construct
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 1,566
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by karbomusic View Post
Oh I read it.... over five years ago when it was originally posted. However, thanks for the reminder as it shows what I mentioned, no real savings in real estate. If it earns it's keep, fine but it needs to earn it and some of the comments I read when I saw the thread was revived aren't that accurate IMHO and it truly, really needs to be accurate to get proper attention. It's not that I have a problem with the idea at it's heart, it just needs to be accurate in reasoning when compared to what is already available.
We do find the description and reasoning quite accurate, regardless of your capabilities. I'll try one more time;

- the non-replicating parts of MCP are the FX slots
- FX slots allow:
- direct, one-click interaction with plugins (open GUI, bypass, offline, replace etc)
- visual information of the assigned plugins (what they are, their order and states)
- visual indication of send states and levels

All the other elements and controls are already present in the TCP, making most of the MCP redundant, wasting precious screen estate (when you don't need large meters and faders) Now while it is possible to hide/display all this redundant stuff, it's not currently possible to get FX slots in TCPs. This doesn't make much structural nor practical sense.

Compared to the suggestion of the layout with just one mixer channel visible, FX slots on TCPs would display FX for several tracks while using a similar amount of screen pixels (=real estate saving), and allow drag & drop operations.

Here's another crude and quick mockup: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...sertsinTCP.png

Now compare the, size, functionality and information in the dark FX slot slice to either having the same amount of tracks visible in the mixer. I also find it preferable to use that space on the side to display the master instead of a single channel, like in the mockup.
noise_construct is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2015, 10:13 AM   #66
karbomusic
Human being with feelings
 
karbomusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 22,649
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by noise_construct View Post
We do find the description and reasoning quite accurate, regardless of your capabilities.
Easy on the implied capability insults; if your request truly has merits, you don't need them.

Quote:
I also find it preferable to use that space on the side to display the master instead of a single channel, like in the mockup.
I don't think it actually saves space but OK.

Last edited by karbomusic; 12-30-2015 at 10:55 AM.
karbomusic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2015, 11:23 AM   #67
xpander
Human being with feelings
 
xpander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Terra incognita
Posts: 4,318
Default

The width used to display inserts can be exactly the same when having the inspector style mixer strip on left or each track having their own insert section on right. There is no space saving there, it's just another way, another place for the information. However, if there's more info to be shown than the current track height allows, more horizontal space is needed for the new section to expand right...if the change of the width of this new section is to be allowed/automated.

Vertically the suggested new insert section will take at least as much or more track space if everything is to be shown. If there are only a few inserts to be shown so that the track panel doesn't have to be resized, it's the same. However, if the TCP has to be resized to show all, more track space is used vertically having this new insert section.

So compared to the "inspector" strip, saving space alone is not a good argument for this new section because it's not true, no space is necessarily saved. Things can be hidden and resized using both approaches, so only the condition where everything is showed counts. But it may be a valid point to compare how many steps it will take to show and use the needed information?

The real difference is in the possible amount of information seen at once. More specifically, information seen for all the currently visible tracks at the same time. If one wants to see the inserts, FXs etc. for all the tracks, single inspector strip won't even do it. It still has the ability to show more per single track up to a point where the track panel is resized the same or more Arrange area is used for the suggested new section(s). But only these new sections can do it for all the tracks at once. That in and itself should be the reason to get it along with the ability to drag/copy etc., not the debatable and conditionally not true space saving claim.
xpander is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2015, 11:47 AM   #68
karbomusic
Human being with feelings
 
karbomusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 22,649
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by xpander View Post
But only these new sections can do it for all the tracks at once. That in and itself should be the reason to get it along with the ability to drag/copy etc., not the debatable and conditionally not true space saving claim.
Correct - If someone wants this FR to have any chance, harping on saving space isn't the right path. Post #25 seems to have the best approximation if we leave space out of the discussion (which we should).
karbomusic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2015, 01:23 PM   #69
noise_construct
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 1,566
Default

Here's another mockup illustrating that you can have 3 inserts + scrolling arrow and one send visible at default track height, as well as the amount of screen estate saved by showing these without MCP with minimal height (the pink rectangle, 675*237px).

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...ertsinTCP2.png
noise_construct is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2015, 02:24 PM   #70
xpander
Human being with feelings
 
xpander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Terra incognita
Posts: 4,318
Default

There is no saved space in there, only tries to compare things which are not sized the same.

Try this one, both the "inspector" and the insert section are the same like they should be for the comparison. Read what I said above and tell me where the space saving is. You may end up taking more space with the insert section but we'll let that slide for now...


xpander is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2015, 02:39 PM   #71
noise_construct
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 1,566
Default

Mind-boggling.

I'm not comparing the "inspector" approach in the mockup. The channel strip on the left side is the Master. I'm comparing the spaced saving from not having to have the MCPs visible at all, illustrated by the pink rectangle.

The "inspector" is only a workaround and can't display multiple tracks at the same time.

The difference in the panel sizes is due to the fact that for some reason the insert slots can't be resized to display only one send (or exact the amount of inserts you have enabled), but this wonky behaviour needs not to applied to TCP mixer slots. The resizing behaviour is erratic in other ways too, but that's another topic.
noise_construct is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2015, 02:59 PM   #72
xpander
Human being with feelings
 
xpander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Terra incognita
Posts: 4,318
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by noise_construct View Post
I'm not comparing the "inspector" approach in the mockup. The channel strip on the left side is the Master. I'm comparing the spaced saving from not having to have the MCPs visible at all, illustrated by the pink rectangle.
Ok, thank you for the clarification. That's the part I missed, that you were not comparing inspector vs TCP insert slots anymore like earlier. That's also a point which hasn't been made yet (unless I missed that one too)...that those TCP slots would take less space than the whole open (docked) mixer would, I guess since that is given.

Quote:
Originally Posted by noise_construct View Post
The "inspector" is only a workaround and can't display multiple tracks at the same time.
Well debated already, I don't think anybody denies that. Only that unless you need the features you get with the TCP slots, "inspector" is not just a workaround but one valid way to work. There are suggested improvements for that type of working also, but they wouldn't quite fit this topic.
xpander is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2015, 03:58 PM   #73
noise_construct
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 1,566
Default

Yes, "inspector" is a valid and useful alternative way of working, but really sidelining this FR since it doesn't achieve the same functionality.

Anyway, I see very little downsides to adding the option to display FX slots in TCPs, since MCP and TCP mirror functionalities for most parts anyway.

It wouldn't be a one-size-fits-all solution to every user, pretty much useless for people with dozens and dozens of minimum-height audio tracks with piles of inserts and several sends, but very handy for those who work with relatively few tracks, VST instruments and not many FX after those.
noise_construct is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2016, 11:18 AM   #74
Ozman
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 469
Default

Ok....
I was just reworking a track template and decided to make some child tracks be hidden from the mixer, to prevent crowding. It would be nice to be able to see the fx of those tracks without relying on a popup window.

An fxchain display that it interchangeable with the track icon (with smaller font size), maybe?

Or as a floating, collapsible window off to the side. Either way, I can see the usefulness now.
Ozman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2016, 12:42 AM   #75
noise_construct
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 1,566
Default

Major workflow improvement.
noise_construct is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2016, 05:30 AM   #76
novalium
Human being with feelings
 
novalium's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 5
Default

I absolutely NEED this improvement.
novalium is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-2016, 06:44 AM   #77
noise_construct
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 1,566
Default

Not yet in the pre-release, maybe next one?
noise_construct is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2016, 12:09 PM   #78
noise_construct
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 1,566
Default

We can do this.
noise_construct is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2016, 04:20 AM   #79
Luster
Human being with feelings
 
Luster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 506
Default

+1 from my side.
Luster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2017, 11:35 AM   #80
Stevie
Human being with feelings
 
Stevie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Urkrain/Russia
Posts: 173
Default

+1 from me
Stevie is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:50 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.