New version of ModPlug Tracker

[Really Weird Person]

I think that you should make a new version of ModPlug Tracker. I think it should have 1 of the following things (or both, which would be better).

1. More patterns (meaning allow the #xx (X Paramiter or whatever it is called) effect to work with the Bxx (Possition Jump) effect to go beyond pattern 256 (with repeats). A good # would be 512 (2x the patterns, 2x the fun)
2. 65,536 rows per pattern (That # is really good, also; just like 1,024). (64x the rows, 64x the patterns/pattern) (1,024 patterns)! 65,536 rows would make ModPlug Tracker even more like Excel! Another thing that would be helpful (just like Excel) is a name box (although you do not have to call it that). With that you could allow the users to go to the specific channel, pattern, & row that they want! It could take the arrows' place (the 1's next to the pattern #'s). Split the name box (or whatever you want to call it, Excel calls it the name box) into 4 columns. 1st column - pattern # (0-511, without repeats), 2nd column - row # (0-65,535), 3rd column - channel # (1-128), 4th column - channel section # (1-3). I think that those additions sound good. You would definately make me happier if you did that; however, I am sure that you would make more than just me much happier if you did that. I am probably not the only person that edits music, & I am probably not the only person that uses ModPlug Tracker to do it. The reasons that I would like these editions include the following.
3. 256 channels (1 channel per Excel column (A-IV))!

1. Navigation would be much easier than the find & replace functions (The name box addition would provide this).
2. Mixing songs together would be much easier (The 512 patterns & 65,536 rows addition would provide this).
3. The channel thing is just for the fun of it, & to make ModPlug Tracker even more like Excel!

Doesn't that sound like a cool project for you to work on? I think that it does.

[rewbs]

Hi wodd. I haven't voted yet, will have to think about all this.

[speed-goddamn-focus]

I voted I was confused. I still am.

[Really Weird Person]

Which 1 (1's) are you confused about? Can you tell me which 1 (1's) you are confused about?

[LPChip]

I personally don't see the benefit of having a poll about this.

It either is not possible, or Rewbs will make it someday. We can't ask from Rewbs that uses his spare time to improve modplug, to tell him how he should do what he does.

I'd say, we remove the poll, and see it as a feature suggestion instead?

[speed-goddamn-focus]

Which 1 (1's) are you confused about? Can you tell me which 1 (1's) you are confused about?

I don't really see the benefits.

[Really Weird Person]

If you like to mix songs together (I do), then you see how those additions would benifit people much.

[Really Weird Person]

I am not trying to tell Rewbs how to do his job; it is just a thuggestion (thought & suggestion mixed together).

[rewbs]

I have thought.

1. In the future I'm sure we can arrange to allow for more patterns (when we have the new file format). But have you really encountered a situation where you needed more that 256 patterns in a particular song? What is the benefit of mixing all your songs together in one file?

2. So many rows will make patterns unmanageable to us lesser mortals. Do you really need so many in order to compose a piece of music? You might want to consider using another pattern. Also, look into the following options in the general tab: "Show Prev/Next Pattern", which displays consecutive patterns in the pattern editor nearly as if they were the same pattern (should be used with "Always center active row") and  "Continuous Scroll", which allows the cursor to more directly from one pattern to the next. These options can make 2 consecutive patterns nearly feel like 1 single big pattern.

3. Again, have you really encountered a situation where you needed that many channels to compose? When mixing tracks together, why not only keep the channels you want to actually play together? I can't believe you'd truely want to play 256 channels all at the same time.

To summarize, I feel these feature ideas are a consequence of your attachement to Excel rather than oppportunities to make OpenMPT a better music production tool. I therefore can't muster a good reason to put them on my todo list.

All this makes me very interested in your music. Do you have anything available for download?

[Squirrel Havoc]

I can't believe you'd truely want to play 256 channels all at the same time.

Um, have you even met Atlantis?  :lol:

[Snu]

Another thing that would be helpful (just like Excel) is a name box (although you do not have to call it that). With that you could allow the users to go to the specific channel, pattern, & row that they want!

thats actually a pretty neat idea i think, sortof a jump-to box?  a nice feature for those who would like to further avoid the mouse.
tho in addition to just having it there, i would suggest some form of hotkey... say, hold down the alt key and type 24, release, and it goes to the 24th pattern (just an example).

also, adding boxes and such to the interface brings up the issue of the area above the pattern becoming cluttered... the ability to customize that is soon to be an essential feature, if it isnt already (i for one have no use for the keyboard split, and have a high rez screen, id love to have it all crammed on one row, and have tons more room to view the pattern).

as for #1, with the current file format, more than 256 patterns is impossible, since those jump to pattern effects are determined by the limitations of a two character hex number.
i do agree that this would be a nice feature in the new file format however, i have hit 206 patterns in my 15 minute sonata (before pattern clean up, after it was 167).
along those lines, more channels would  be nice as well (and has been requested before), tho i certianly have note come close to using even 64 channels.

#2 tho, i really cant think of a logical reason for, rarely do i even use patterns over 64 rows, and more than 1024... what would be the point? the whole point of patterns of limited length is to divide the song into usable and logical sections, without that, the tracker would be a lot more confusing!



as an ending note, i really fail to see your interest in making mpt more like excel tho, its an entirely different program for an entirely different purpose.
and personally, i have a thing against making mpt anything more like a microsoft product... -_-

[Really Weird Person]

The reason why more than 256 patterns would be needed is as follows. I am trying to mix 2 songs together, but here is my problem. Pattern 5 (the 1st song is 5 patterns with the 1st 4 being 1,024 rows long & the 5th 1 is 834 rows. If I try to do the mix (without changing the # of rows for any of the patterns), the 2nd song's rows only go up by 2 (meaning 3, 5, 7, 9, 11...). I did the math. Since the pattern is the 2nd song goes up by 2 rows each time, it would take 80 patterns just to get the 1st song to meet @ half of a pattern (not what I want); therefore, it would take 160 patterns to meet @ a whole pattern (what I want, but it would most likely not end @ the right pattern (13)). Houston, we have a problem. We do not have enough patterns! We are only allowed 239 of them (or is that 240? What ever it is, it is not enough); ahhhhhhhhhh! The 256 thing does not count in song mixing (what you do to 1 side of the equation, you must do to the other). That same rule applies here. What you do to the repeated pattern, it does that same thing to the 1st 1. & even 256 would probably not be enough, I am not totally sure. 512 would most likely be enough. If not, try doubling that (1,024). I even tried making all of the patterns 1,024 rows; however, that did not work either.

[Really Weird Person]

That would probably make more sense than making it more like Word or PowerPoint. Making ModPlug Tracker look like those would probably look really weird, odd, wodd, odd, weird. How would the coding be wrong for the Position Jump (Bxx), but not for the Pattern Break (Cxx)? I suppose that it was wrong for the pattern break, also. However, Rewbs probably fixed that when he made the addition of 768 rows. Another thing that I just thought of is this. I do recommend, however, that (if you do make a newer version of ModPlug Tracker with or without the additions, but especially if you do make a newer version with the additions) you fix the bug that allows the #xx command to be usable only in the 1st channel. That would be pretty much required if you do make a new version with the additions that I have listed in whichever post it was. The reason that it would be required is as follows. You may need to use it for both the Bxx & Cxx commands. If that is the case, you would most likely put them in separate channels. However, if the #xx command only works in channel 1, you would have an issue. The issue would be that only 1 effect (if any @ all) would be activated. However, you would want both of them to be active, right? Doesn't that sound reasonable.

I feel bad for Rewbs. I feel like I am trying to tell him how to do his job; however, that is not my intention @ all; all I am trying to do is make some suggestions to him.

[rewbs]

thats actually a pretty neat idea i think, sortof a jump-to box? a nice feature for those who would like to further avoid the mouse.
tho in addition to just having it there, i would suggest some form of hotkey... say, hold down the alt key and type 24, release, and it goes to the 24th pattern (just an example).

There's already a go-to box, though it is not very well publicized.
I keep forgetting to add it to the menus...
Look in the keyboard config dialog, under "Pattern Editor - General", there is a "Go to row/channel/..." command. You can use that jump to any position in the track using just the keyboard (though I don't think this is exactly what wodd was asking for).

more than 256 patterns is impossible, since those jump to pattern effects are determined by the limitations of a two character hex number.

Yes, but we have Ericus' param extension effect (#xx) that can be used as a multiplier to work around such issues.

The reason why more than 256 patterns would be needed is as follows.

Wodd, I'm not as good with numbers as you so it will take me a little while to understand that.

How would the coding be wrong for the Position Jump (Bxx), but not for the Pattern Break (Cxx)? I suppose that it was wrong for the pattern break, also. However, Rewbs probably fixed that

Could you explain the problem you are encountering with the Position Jump (Bxx)? When you encounter problems, it is likely they will never get fixed unless you explain the problems (sorry if you already explained this one and I missed your explanation).

I do recommend, however, that [...] you fix the bug that allows the #xx command to be usable only in the 1st channel.

This one should be fixed in version 1.17RC2. What version are you using?

I feel bad for Rewbs. I feel like I am trying to tell him how to do his job; however, that is not my intention @ all; all I am trying to do is make some suggestions to him.

Don't feel bad (it's not my job). Here's a deal: you don't feel about making suggestions, and I don't feel bad if they never get implemented.

[Snu]

The reason why more than 256 patterns would be needed is as follows. I am trying to mix 2 songs together, but here is my problem. Pattern 5 (the 1st song is 5 patterns with the 1st 4 being 1,024 rows long & the 5th 1 is 834 rows. If I try to do the mix....

ok... you lost me about there, i have absolutely no clue what you are talking about...
would not 160 patterns of 1024 rows make for an hours long song...?
isnt there some other easier way to achieve what you are trying to do?
if nothing else, to simply render each song to a wav, and use a multi track editor like audacity?


rewbs:
niiiice, that jump to dialog is pretty sweet, ill definitely use it! its amazing how many commands like this are in mpt. i always have a hard time committing new commands to memory tho, guess i should do some studying of the keyboard config!
the great thing about mpt is that its so simple on the surface, but when you get into it, there are so many hidden things, and so many different ways to do things, i love it.
also, along those lines, i hadnt thought about the #xx effect... i have yet to use it, so i guess it hadnt occured to me! oops.