Re: Import a MIDI file


On Wed, Jul 04, 2007 at 01:49:53PM +0200, Tim Janik wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Jul 2007, Stefan Westerfeld wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 03, 2007 at 11:17:41AM +0200, Tim Janik wrote:
> >>> So as far as I can see there is a use case for the behaviour I
> >>> implemented, unless we find a way to express seperate modulation in
> >>> beast with the same elegance but in a different way than I do it right
> >>> now.
> >>
> >> fine, what about adding a checkbox to the script then that preserves
> >> your use case behavior?
> >>   [ ] Only assign tracks connected to 'Master' bus
> >>
> >>> But I've personally never encountered a use case for reassigning
> >>> unconnected busses other than the midi importer,
> >>
> >> yes, i know. that's why i keep telling you that *others* are
> >> encountering these cases. so the use case exists, even if it
> >> isn't exhibited by your personal usage patterns.
> >
> > It would be great if you could share your insight into the goals,
> > motivations, workflow and usage patterns of these other users to a
> > degree that I can clearly understand that you are right.
> 1. start beast
> 2. activate Project/New Song
> 3. actiavte Tracks/Add multiple times
> 4. select Mixer/Inputs, remove tracks from Master-1 bus
> 5. do anything distracting you from the current track setup
>     (go on holidays, come back 2 years later)
> 6. observer unconnected Tracks
> 7. select Tools/Song/Assign Tracks to individual Mixer busses
> contrary to its labeling, the script from step 7. has no effect
> on the unconnected tracks.

To keep the mailing list updated: Tim and I had a short face to face
discussion about the scope of the script. It turned out that I use the
script very often in daily work. In fact, I use it almost every time I
create a new track, so that each track gets its own mixer channel, so
its more of a workaround use case. As a consequence, it would be really
useful to make beast do the thing I need automatically. On the other
hand, midi importing seems to be the other most important use case.

If both are fixed in beast, then the script will probably not be too
important anymore in daily use - we eliminate most use cases that way.
One argument I had against adding a checkbox for toggling behaviour was,
that it will increase the number of clicks required (which is bad if you
need the script very often). This will no longer be an issue then. But
maybe it will turn out that nobody needs the script anyway after the
fixes, so we can remove it.

See also:

> however, i'm sorry for assuming that you're aware
> of the functionality beast offers for step 4.

Step 4 is clear. Its more that I so far didn't construct use cases which
include that the user gets distracted and forget about what he did
before (step 5). But if people do have these issues, I am not generally
opposed to seeing appropriate functionality in beast.

   Cu... Stefan
Stefan Westerfeld, Hamburg/Germany,

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]