Author Topic: [DECLINED] Rearrange Patterns +1  (Read 2479 times)

Offline Really Weird Person

  • Crazy artist
  • ****
  • Posts: 818
  • I love Daisy (デイジー)!
  • Operating System: Windows 8 Pro x64
[DECLINED] Rearrange Patterns +1
« on: January 04, 2010, 00:17:40 »
Now this may sound like a bogus request for a couple of reasons:

1. It is coming from Really Weird Person (OK, so maybe this isn't what might make it seem bogus, but it "sounded" good, on to reason 2.)
2. There is probably only one person in the world (or at least on this forum) whose patterns begin counting with the number 1 instead of the number -1, err, 0. (OK, so again, maybe this isn't what might make the request seem bogus, and I would follow it up with ", on to reason 3," but I forgot that one, so on to the request.)

It would be nice if there was a rearrange patterns +1 function that did exactly what the rearrange patterns function does, except beginning the patterns at 1 instead of 0. Note:  If this was done "properly," (based on how the program is currently set up) theoretically what would happen is if the maximum number of patterns (currently 4,000, but hopefully more in the future) is used and that function is activated, the last pattern would be completely removed and the remaining patterns would be numbered 1 - 3,999.

Offline Paul Legovitch

  • Workaholic artist
  • ***
  • Posts: 145
    • http://legovitch.blogspot.com
[DECLINED] Rearrange Patterns +1
« Reply #1 on: January 04, 2010, 08:43:26 »
Hi, maybe you can :
- create a new empty pattern at the beginning of the order list.
- rearrange patterns and remove pattern #0 (your empty pattern).

Btw I've just noticed that the last build features a new cleanup window and no longer has independent sub-menus for independent actions (cleanup samples, instruments, plugins, ...). It's no longer possible to quickly rearrange patterns (and only that) without having to uncheck a lot of options. (or is it ?) :?
I think it would be a good idea to keep the possibility to use these features separately (keep the sub-menus along with the cleanup window).

Offline Saga Musix

  • OpenMPT Developers
  • *****
  • Posts: 6,512
  • aka Jojo
    • Download music, samples, VST plugins: Saga Musix Website
  • Operating System: Windows 7 x64
[DECLINED] Rearrange Patterns +1
« Reply #2 on: January 04, 2010, 13:04:03 »
About the original request: No dice.

Paul: It's still a bit complicated to use indeed, but the original menu will definitely not be kept. I'm already thinking about a less complicated solution, maybe with right click and middle click options, like I've done it before in other applications.
» No support, bug reports, feature requests via private messages - they will not be answered. Use the forums and the issue tracker so that everyone can benefit from your post.

Offline Really Weird Person

  • Crazy artist
  • ****
  • Posts: 818
  • I love Daisy (デイジー)!
  • Operating System: Windows 8 Pro x64
(S=O) Rearrange Patterns +1
« Reply #3 on: January 04, 2010, 17:51:25 »
Quote from: "Jojo"
About the original request: No dice.


I suspected that would be the case, but I thought I would give it a try.

Quote from: "Paul Legovitch"
Hi, maybe you can :
- create a new empty pattern at the beginning of the order list.
- rearrange patterns and remove pattern #0 (your empty pattern).


That's an excellent idea, Paul. Wow, you seem like you may have done this stuff before (at least tracking)! :lol: That seems to have worked! You see, Paul, I am old-fashioned and still use version 1.17.02.52, which has a pattern naming bug. When I name patterns, the patterns 256 above them take on the same name (for example 1 and 257 or 12 and 268). The reason that I use the older version is primarily because the newer versions only allow up to 4,000 patterns per song, but many times I need more than that. Try to make 663 × 98 equal something ≤ 4,000. Good luck with that one! All I could ever make it equal is 64,974. I would imagine that calculators don't lie, so I would assume that 663 × 98 does indeed equal 64,974 and not 3,974. How about a more simple one like 123 × 138? That equals only 16,974 (unless Calculator lied, but I doubt that it did).