Umx files for UT99

[Lofty]

UT99 was actually how I started using Modplug Tracker. I wanted to convert other music to .umx form, and got Modplug for that very purpose. Then the penny dropped and I realised I could make my own music with the program. Shame it all sucks, huh?  :twisted:

[DavidN]

Similarly, I downloaded MPT so that I could make music for Megazeux. This is a game creation system that was written as a sequel of sorts to one of Epic's first games, ZZT.

So everything is linked and there is order in the universe, good night.

[Squirrel Havoc]

MPT was the first tracker I ever used. I got it when I was searching for alternatives to MIDI (to listen to, not to make), and alternatives to RealMedia files for techno music. I found MPC, and I installed the plugin, then I went to the spinner, and heard this mod (or one similar), and I was blown away that sound quality so good (for it's time) was possible in such a small file. And I was so into techno (this was durring the rave craze of the late 90s), I thought "Wow, I gotta find a way to make something like this", so I saw a link that said "What would you like to do?" and the options were like "Download music", "Listen to music", then there was one that said "Make your own music", and I checked that out and it was a link to the MPT site (same server, but different section I believe). I checked it out, and of course had no samples, and when I read online about sampling, it was talking about samplin from audio CDs, so I popped in my Sunscreem CD and took some vocal samples from it, and well made the worst song in history. And I'm one to give up in the beginning, when things get hard. BUt I didn't give up. There was a hiatus between 1999 and 2001, then I took it seriously. But I'm glad I stuck with it, I've produced atleast a few songs I'm proud of, even if other people didn't like them.

[Harbinger]

I'd just like to add that UMX doesn't support all the features of S3M, XM, or IT. I believe volume envelopes, filters and NNA's are not supported, and the volume of the song will be much lower in Unreal than it is in the tracker.

That's good to know... Has anyone done any experimentation with the conversion allowances? If not, i will and i'll get back to you in this thread.
I AM concerned about the extra stuff that the latest version of MPT adds (at the end of the .it file?). Will this affect UnrealEd's conversion, L-chip?

He wants to be able to process just a certain note (like all C-4's in a channel), which is very easy to when using a piano roll but impossible in a tracker. Of course the find/replace function will do the job, but it's not very intuitive. I'm not sure why that functionality is important tho...

Sequencers like those from Master Tracks allows mass editing of any MIDI messages; once you've worked with this capability, you can't do any electronic music composition without it.
For example, the other day while putting together an .it track, i needed to switch all the C notes down an octave (because the sample at that note wasn't the sound i was looking for). If that's the only notes that were in that channel there'd be no problem, but i also mix instruments within one channel (like drums) as long as they don't interfere with each other. I also needed to lower the volume only of that sample in that channel. MPT does not expect me to use it like a sequencer, so there's no ability to filter notes or other volume or FX data.
I guess what i'm saying is, MPT would do better if you can select non-contiguous data. This can be done by shift-clicking and dragging the selection rect over the target (this is second nature for mac users), or by presenting a dialog box which first asks you to narrow down which data to select (such as all C5s with instrument 01 with volume over 32) and then asks what you want to do with it (attenuate the volume, add panning effects, transpose down an augmented fifth, or the like) ? this was the method that Master Tracks used. And believe me, if MPT had this capability, this would set MPT apart.

As a matter of fact, tracking should actually be called channeling, because as i'm learning, MPT uses data primarily by channel ? mostly because the sound data is included within the file and the software only needs to know when to play the data and on what channel (plus what to do with the channel sound in some cases). Sequencers are the ones that actually use data by tracks; you can have all you channels on one track if you wish, or divide the MIDI data among tracks with little concern about the channel the computer is using. But that's just FYI...

I took the latest version of MPT home (2.42 for short), and was happy with the new features ? altho i had a few issues with the layout, since i only use a 1024x768 screen (the Channel Manager window was too big, for example). I also had a problem with "bouncing" playback, but i think that has more to do with the speed of my machine (which is about 150mHz with VirtualPC). But i LOVE the key assignment options, as well as the extra panes within each window (pitch manipulation, etc.).

BTW, concerning my question previously with the resonance effects: THANKYOU, Mr. LaPicque!! There is now a slider which allows random fluctuations of both cutoff and resonance; now i can tap my rez synth rhythm and get that perfect rave track! (Altho i'd still like to figure out how to use the Zxx FX for moving the sliders from within the track.)

[Relabsoluness]

...or by presenting a dialog box which first asks you to narrow down which data to select (such as all C5s with instrument 01 with volume over 32) and then asks what you want to do with it (attenuate the volume, add panning effects, transpose down an augmented fifth, or the like) ? this was the method that Master Tracks used. And believe me, if MPT had this capability, this would set MPT apart.

Find/replace still sounds just like a rough version of the thing descriped there, but it has already been mentioned twice so maybe it is not such What's the essential difference between that functionality and the one provided by find/replace(or is find/replace just too 'rough' tool)?

[Harbinger]

I'll admit i haven't used the Find/Replace yet. I'll see if that'll help when i work on some tracks tonight. Thanks for the heads-up...

[Harbinger]

After using Find/Replace, it appears that's exactly what i was looking for.

Well, almost! One of the things i'd like to do is Find all Effects messages in a channel (say, Zxx) and interpolate them or even thin them (so as to reduce the events that are processed). Hopefully, the next release will have this function.

But for now, it helps me to select only the data i need and manipulate it. Thanks, relabsoluness!

[DMNXS]

I'd just like to add that UMX doesn't support all the features of S3M, XM, or IT. I believe volume envelopes, filters and NNA's are not supported, and the volume of the song will be much lower in Unreal than it is in the tracker.

Regarding what you said, and the differences I remember betwen the sound ingame and via player (that is, I remember there were differences), I believe it's just an Unreal engine issue, and has nothing to do with the format itself, which this entry in wikipedia:emphasizes:
".umx (originated in Unreal) Is basically an Impulse Tracker file, except it is used for music on the unreal games."

[speed-goddamn-focus]

Regarding what you said, and the differences I remember betwen the sound ingame and via player (that is, I remember there were differences), I believe it's just an Unreal engine issue, and has nothing to do with the format itself, which this entry in wikipedia:emphasizes:
".umx (originated in Unreal) Is basically an Impulse Tracker file, except it is used for music on the unreal games."

You're quite right, and I guess that's good to know for anyone feeling the urge to use the .umx format outside of the Unreal engine.