More modular router

[soma]

Enjoying my first trip down reaper lane. Wow! Such a great arranger.

I come from an XT/BUZZ/SE/Reaktor type background. I would REALLY love to see a modualr view that better visualized how tracks and even effects are connected.
One view that showed all effects and sources, allowed one click access to changing amounts to other deveices, etc.
Some thing like:

or this with a place to ckick to adjust each line's volume
[img]http://img138.**************/img138/7453/compviewyj9.png[/img]
or this if they were effects and had a place to click to adjust each line's volume

[Lawrence]

+1 ... with an explanation of sorts...

I think that graphic router thing above is not only butt ugly but I couldn't imagine working in it (the first one, the other two are much better)... HOWEVER (this is where I directly support your request ) ... I personally have little use for Reapers current routing matrix, and never use it.

So changing it to something like your example wouldn't affect me in the least.

+1!

[soma]

Yeah I agree the first is by far the best modular routing I've come across and I've basically spent the last 8 years trying to get other software platforms to adopt it.

[historic stork]

that kind of routing could be useful for vsts and such.

[Ad0]

+1 !!!

Also, the sequencer with mixer should be represented as a module where the tracks are exposed as pins that are connectable.

It also has to be divided between midi and audio. Well basically the same as EnergyXT. :-)

If you got this in Reaper, it would smash any sequencer out there!

[Xenakios]

+1, I guess...I wouldn't need it so much for audio/MIDI routing, but if this supported also control parameters (mixer volume/pan/sends, plugins etc...) this would surely kill. Maybe Jesusonic plugins could generate the control data...

[Ad0]

Originally Posted by Xenakios

+1, I guess...I wouldn't need it so much for audio/MIDI routing, but if this supported also control parameters (mixer volume/pan/sends, plugins etc...) this would surely kill. Maybe Jesusonic plugins could generate the control data...

Yeah the "midi" (green pin in energyXT2) pin would take care of that. This could refer to both midi and automation data.

[rsmus7]

+1 from here

would really be cool to have the XT modview in reaper

[Ad0]

It would also take care of what I requested in the previous post. http://www.cockos.com/forum/showthread.php?t=18982

[thcjunkee]

+1

... and I haven't seen it on this forum yet, so I'll give a "plug" for Bidule and show off more of my fine work that I seem to be so very proud of...

[IMG]http://img96.**************/img96/9950/ploguebidulescreenshotbe6.jpg[/IMG]

[airon]

+1

Maybe as a TAB in the routing window. An alternate routing matrix for more handson and quick control of routing midi channels around.

It'll need a lot of work though.

[gregh]

I quite like the box and wires approach for small routing designs, but the problem with this style of visualisation is rapidly increasing complexity as the routing size increases. This is usually solved by chunking subpatterns into a container. This would be quite a change to implement and I don't think the chunking strategy would be that useful in practice compared to an improved version of the existing system.

One improvement to the current routing view would be to enable things like folder(parent) and child colour coding, and collapsing of folders as with folders in the arrange view now.

There also needs to be a method for rapidly jumping to the correct track when track numbers are large. One method would be to visually signal every tenth or so track (vertically and horizontally) to provide a visual cue (eg by making it slightly darker). This could be overriden by folder related colouring.

[Jae.Thomas]

i made a feature request for this a LONG time ago.

it would be nice

[Ad0]

Originally Posted by gregh

I quite like the box and wires approach for small routing designs, but the problem with this style of visualisation is rapidly increasing complexity as the routing size increases. This is usually solved by chunking subpatterns into a container.

You solved the problem there. Same thing exists in reaktor! (I think?)

Originally Posted by gregh

I
One improvement to the current routing view would be to enable things like folder(parent) and child colour coding, and collapsing of folders as with folders in the arrange view now.

There also needs to be a method for rapidly jumping to the correct track when track numbers are large. One method would be to visually signal every tenth or so track (vertically and horizontally) to provide a visual cue (eg by making it slightly darker). This could be overriden by folder related colouring.

This is kinda another FR, but +1!
Besides, you wouldn't need that many tracks if you had modular routing. Today, the routing is track based. I end up having a lot of tracks that do not serve any other purpose than being a routing point.

[gregh]

Originally Posted by Ad0

This is kinda another FR, but +1!

yeah it is (and sorry for the hijack) ... but than again it also isn't if you think of the FR as being about routing usability. One of the problems with FRs in general (no criticism of your or other's good suggestions intended) is they can be narrowly specific and act as drivers of a piecemeal design process.

[ekral]

+1

Hi,

I think that it will simplify Reaper a lot, because nearly half of manual is about routing that can be done so easily in modular environments.

Erik

[thcjunkee]

Originally Posted by airon

Maybe as a TAB in the routing window.

agreed

Originally Posted by gregh

This is usually solved by chunking subpatterns into a container.

maybe just utilizing folders as the containers in the modular routing diagram, initially.

as a newbie, I still sometimes get confused about the role of folder tracks as containers versus routing constructs. Maybe there are ways to choose specific behaviors of individual folders, or maybe there could be in the future.

[plush2]

+1
I come from the buzz/ext school as well. There's none faster for complex routing.

[w00t]

yes I must concur
with this as I am a VERY active energyXt (reason for vst nuts) user. (hey soma its allenPOPO) but yeah.....I wonder if the reaper plugin protocol could allow for a simple reaper plugin that *is* a modular vst chainer? this would imo solve the problem for me. maybe this cant be done but how awesome would that be if we had that!!!!!!!!

[Argitoth]

As of right now, Reaper is not completely modular because of its folder system. We first need folders inside folders, that would be the first step of improving Reaper.

[Ad0]

Originally Posted by Argitoth

As of right now, Reaper is not completely modular because of its folder system. We first need folders inside folders, that would be the first step of improving Reaper.

That won't solve anything for vsts that have multiple outs.
That would just be like continuing on a "bad" path. Waste of time if you ask me, if modular approach is even considered.

Nested folders isn't a bad idea in itself, but I think it would be harder to "go back" to another solution since more complexity is introduced.

With a modular approach, you can mimic nested folders in the frontend. The modules will be connected accordingly (can just be a way of working amongs many).
Or it could be used as a pure visual representation, just to group stuff in the sequencer.

[Argitoth]

Maybe we are on different pages here. My concern is that there's no way to have a group of VSTs routed into another and then have a bunch of groups rout to another after that without doing crazy send setups. Modular view would solve this, but that's a huge step. We need a smaller step to fix an important issue right now, not in the distant future.

vst vst vst   vst vst vst
 \   |   /     \   |   /
  \--|--/       \--|--/
    vst           vst
     \             /
      \           /
       \----|----/
           vst
            |
        master out

Get it? Doing this setup in Reaper is nearly impossible right now. It's a big issue for me.

[gregh]

I agree. Folder in folder solves this easily - it is a feature request going back a long way

[Ad0]

Originally Posted by Argitoth

Get it? Doing this setup in Reaper is nearly impossible right now. It's a big issue for me.

Yeah I understand. I just wonder how much work it is to implement nested folders, and how much more distant a modular approach is gonna be if that nested folder stuff is getting implemented.

Awesome ascii art btw!

I have an issue when dealing with multi outs though.
A drum machone has X channels out. I route kick out of the drum machine to channel 3. From there I want to group bass and kick. Therefore I have to route the kick to an own kick track, and place that under a folder together with the bass. So pure folders won't solve it to me. Now it's kinda hard to see what's connected and not, even with the mod matrix.

[Argitoth]

Originally Posted by Ad0

Awesome ascii art btw!

Thanks!

Originally Posted by Ad0

A drum machone has X channels out. I route kick out of the drum machine to channel 3. From there I want to group bass and kick. Therefore I have to route the kick to an own kick track, and place that under a folder together with the bass. So pure folders won't solve it to me. Now it's kinda hard to see what's connected and not, even with the mod matrix.

I can understand that too.

[Ad0]

I tried Tracktion the other day, and this kind of routing would fit Reaper perfectly and be 32 times more powerful than Tracktion, since Traction's tracks are locked to stereo.

The Traction routing is called 'Racks'. Combinining this and nested folders would just be beyond everything!

http://acousmodules.free.fr/tutorial4.htm

[labyrinth]

Good idea...lets do it...an extension to the existing Routing Matrix

++1

[hamish]

Originally Posted by Lawrence

+1 ... with an explanation of sorts...

I think that graphic router thing above is not only butt ugly but I couldn't imagine working in it (the first one, the other two are much better)... HOWEVER (this is where I directly support your request ) ... I personally have little use for Reapers current routing matrix, and never use it.

So changing it to something like your example wouldn't affect me in the least.

+1!

Why quote this early post in the thread? Well in contrast I find the matrix is one of the most important windows in Reaper and it was the very first thing I wanted to see improved. The main window in hermann seibs 'VSThost' is just a visual patchbay, like the buzz main window. The Plogue bidule looks beautiful, and in Ubuntu Studio you could use 'patchage'. I haven't seen tracktions aproach.

Bring it on, let's see what cockos are capable of!!!

BTW in over 6 months this is the first Feature Request I have subscribed to (+vely)

[Ad0]

Originally Posted by hamish

Why quote this early post in the thread? Well in contrast I find the matrix is one of the most important windows in Reaper and it was the very first thing I wanted to see improved. The main window in hermann seibs 'VSThost' is just a visual patchbay, like the buzz main window. The Plogue bidule looks beautiful, and in Ubuntu Studio you could use 'patchage'. I haven't seen tracktions aproach.

Bring it on, let's see what cockos are capable of!!!

BTW in over 6 months this is the first Feature Request I have subscribed to (+vely)

The Traction "Rack" feature is a weird way of routing.
It acts as a singleton (single, shared instance) of freely routed modules in a "box" with I / O. You can connect this between tracks. Tracks are still essential in the routing process. This is why I think this will match Reaper without "disturbing" existing workflow.

The ultimate wish would have sort of total, free-form biduleesque routing with lots of built in logical modules from Reaper natively, like logical switches if the note range is within C4-C5, then it routes the singnal to another module etc. I think Logic AND Bidule does this. This would, as I have mentioned earlier, remove the need of tracks as a point of routing, but it would also probably require a redesign of the UI and workflow. It's crossing the rubicon if this get implemented.

Check this screenshot for explaination https://stash.reaper.fm/oldsb/99229/TracktionRouting.png

[mse]

++1
Must be "Tracktion" or "Reason" style routing in "Reaper".

[hamish]

Quote Ad0

'It (the Rack) acts as a singleton (single, shared instance) of freely routed modules in a "box" with I / O. You can connect this between tracks. Tracks are still essential in the routing process. This is why I think this will match Reaper without "disturbing" existing workflow.'

Sounds convincing to me at this stage Ad0, keep bumping.

Whatever comes it should be a (backwardly) compatible layer over the existing routing matrix, I would think.

[Ad0]

Originally Posted by hamish

Sounds convincing to me at this stage Ad0, keep bumping.

Whatever comes it should be a (backwardly) compatible layer over the existing routing matrix, I would think.

Hehe. It will be. It's just that this will be more flexible, and actually bring you closer to the audio engine.

Take this for example: https://stash.reaper.fm/oldsb/99229/TracktionRouting.png

Then take this into consideration for a total overview:

https://stash.reaper.fm/oldsb/35346/1...3019.30030.png

This is supposed to match the first Tracktion Routing example.
(Ooops. I meant track 2 instead of 1)

This way you can reconnect to different tracks in the overview between the racks and you get this nice big picture where everything is going.
If reaper was to expose it's routing etc to the dev api, a 3rd party could make this in any way!

[labyrinth]

This actually sounds more like an additional router or rack, as the existing one is based on the whole project, rather than track by track.

[Ad0]

Originally Posted by labyrinth

This actually sounds more like an additional router or rack, as the existing one is based on the whole project, rather than track by track.

It should be based on the whole project as well. Racks AND total overview, where the tracks are represented as I / O boxes.

[Ad0]

I emplore you:

Yesterday, when playing with plugs, I found it extremely clunky to route anything.

I had FX 1 in the rack. I wanted to route this to channel 3 and 4. Fair enough.
First I had to click to uncheck left -> channel 1 (2 clicks)
Then I had to check left -> channel 3 (2 clicks)
Then I had to click to uncheck right -> channel 2 (2 clicks)
Then I had to check right -> channel 4 (2 clicks).

That's like 8 clicks and moves to route ONE effect.

Ooops. FX 2 and FX 3 Didn't follow that! That's kind of expected but not always assumed. So I had to Do the same thing all over again for the chain. Also, I missed unchecking some channels but I didn't notice this before much later. The mix sounded so odd

I love the flexibility, but the UI must be improved to encourage creativity. Because by the time I am done routing, I forgot what my idea was about the whole thing

PLEASE!

[Ad0]

Originally Posted by Ad0

I had FX 1 in the rack. I wanted to route this to channel 3 and 4. Fair enough.
First I had to click to uncheck left -> channel 1 (2 clicks)
Then I had to check left -> channel 3 (2 clicks)
Then I had to click to uncheck right -> channel 2 (2 clicks)
Then I had to check right -> channel 4 (2 clicks).

That's like 8 clicks and moves to route ONE effect.

If you're impatient to wait for the sub menu to show up, it will be an additional click per action. So in worst case: ( 4 x ( 1 + 2 ) ) = 12 clicks (!!!!) And that's for stereo

Originally Posted by Ad0

Ooops. FX 2 and FX 3 Didn't follow that! That's kind of expected but not always assumed. So I had to Do the same thing all over again for the chain.

So you have to route input, and then output. That's like a bazillion clicks

[General Contact Unit]

I've suggested something before:
UI Hell: One click assign all selected FX inputs and/or outputs
http://www.cockos.com/forum/showthread.php?t=11599
Use alt, ctrl, etc. modifiers to delete existing routing, doing it in stereo, etc. Also, option to drag drop down menus off the menu so they become normal windows.

[Ad0]

*****bump*****

[rsmus7]

::::::::::::::::::::::
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_

bump again

::::::::::::::::::::::
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_

[labyrinth]

Alright, so people have passed around a lot of ideas on this and many also like the router the way is now...so I came up with a work around. This method or integration would give you the option to view with or without the fx showing, which would save room on those huge projects. This method incorporates the AWESOME new fx pin connector from the fx into the router. You would still be able to adjust them where they are, but view and change them here as well. What does everyone think?