Rendering by Instrument

[Rxn]

We could just stop the time with Impulse Tracker

No, but we could stop the time with fasttracker interface.

I gave renoise a chance on a number of occasions but their reluctance to
accept that there has been some change in OS GUIs since the beginning
of the nineties defeats the purpose of having a ton of bells and whistles.


It was a very wise Olivier's decision to abandon the DIY interface
approach in favour of the standard looking application rather than
reinvent the wheel.

There is really really no point in employing prehistorical interface design approach anymore.

[Rakib]

No, but we could stop the time with fasttracker interface.

It was a very wise Olivier's decision to abandon the DIY interface
approach in favour of the standard looking application rather than
reinvent the wheel.

There is really really no point in employing prehistorical interface design approach anymore.

+1

The same reason why I prefer mpt over renoise.

[Saga Musix]

You are denying yourself with that statement, because you too are adding (slowly) new functions that will make OMPT better and more feature rich.

While MPT does get new features indeed, it is still compatible with its own roots - Unlike Renoise, which dropped compatibility in favor of new features. The big difference between the two is that Renoise is what people call a 3rd generation tracker (a DAW), and I'd say MPT Is a 2.5nd generation tracker. Still showing its roows (FT2, IT), but also offering some features modern DAWs has. Being true to its origins doesn't contradict with adding new features, on the contrary, stopping development doesn't indicate that it's true its roots.

Oh, and a "modular" interface can also be done without painting all controls black and orange.  That is very well possible. And it's also possible to be modern by using the operating systems' own file selection dialog, in contrast to the shitty built-in file dialog in Renoise, which it inherited from FT2, where it was even worse.

[psishock]

No, but we could stop the time with fasttracker interface.

I gave renoise a chance on a number of occasions but their reluctance to
accept that there has been some change in OS GUIs since the beginning
of the nineties defeats the purpose of having a ton of bells and whistles.

It was a very wise Olivier's decision to abandon the DIY interface
approach in favour of the standard looking application rather than
reinvent the wheel.

There is really really no point in employing prehistorical interface design approach anymore.

I can see where this is going , but if one cant give up the highly favored microsoft windows 98 skin over the feature list, there is really no point of the comparing.
I can assure you that having every of the essential controls on one screen is a lot more functional and faster than browsing through several separate windows constantly, while working on your music. Just have to think more open about a good and funtional gui, it's really not about "ton of bells and whistles" that you will barely use. If working with something else than standard win98 gui seems impossible, and that problem has better impact that whole of the feature list, welcome to OMPT, it really is your best choice over win98 gui trackers.
I wasnt even tried to be a Renoise missionary on the first place, only reacted to your post, about OMPT being the most advanced tracked out there, showing some feature facts that are clearly denying it.

Jojo:
Yep, compatibility is OMPT-s strength, i've even said that. But if we look on it, the fact to be "compatible" with legacy formats is getting less and less important. People are usually working with the formats that is offering them the most functionality. Even in the old times, trackers developers changed their formats, and invented a lot of different features that didnt allowed backward compatibility.
Take MOD and IT example: Can you load up MOD to IT compatible trackers? Sure. Can you load, saved IT files to only MOD compatible trackers? Nuh-uh. The same is happened with XRNS example, it can load every popular legacy module formats, only backward compatibility just isn't available.
OMPT have added new "technical" features that didnt really work "compatibility" wise, like VST support on IT files, filters on IT files, big pattern length, mix levels, or 128 channels for instance. Try to load up those IT files with Impulse Tracker, or and IT module player. I'm sure you know what will happen.
It is not really working well, those files will be opened successfully only with OPMT, and having this in mind, the MPTM will become more and more important for the task, because people are loving and using those new features all the time (that is the point of the new cool feature ).

Now i knooow what you're thinking. "ok these might be right at some level, but hey, that is still not reason to drop saving compatibility to old formats, just need to disable these new features while using them"
Well, if one needs to work on MOD files, dont really give a damn about any of the fancy new features for starters, his totally fine with even the early versions of MPT as well. Renoise recognized that fact, that why they dropped the legacy format saving compatibility (i totally agree that loading support for wide list of legacy formats are highly recommended, and it has that feature). You can use any time the old versions (or other old trackers) for old formats, however if you happen to need any of the new stuff, you can load up them any time to the new tracker versions. Having that in mind, saving compatibility for legacy formats doesn't really matter at some point.
(I'm not even getting into "how important are (or will be) the legacy formats, for our musicians". Everybody can have his own reasons why is he using them, and for what purpose. But i believe the massive percent will simply not care about it, and will highly demand the new cool features.)

[Saga Musix]

But if we look on it, the fact to be "compatible" with legacy formats is getting less and less important. People are usually working with the formats that is offering them the most functionality.

That is not the point. MPT is more than a tracker. You can listen to many modules in legacy formats, and that's exactly the point. People would not want MPT to be elss compatible to "work" with it. Because working can also mean "being an excellent mod player". And that way, compatibility is not getting less important.

Even in the old times, trackers developers changed their formats, and invented a lot of different features that didnt allowed backward compatibility.

Wrong. FT2 could handle MOD, ST3 could handle MOD, IT could handle MOD, S3M and XM. There was no need not to be compatible to others.

Take MOD and IT example: Can you load up MOD to IT compatible trackers? Sure. Can you load, saved IT files to only MOD compatible trackers?

You're talking about forwards compatibility here, not backwards compatibility. Renoise cannot even load MOD/S3M/XM/IT properly, it's just a very rough import. And when you look at other trackers, that is exactly what they do differently: MODs sound correct in ST3 or IT. Of course, you can't load the MPTM format into ProTracker, but you can load MODs into MPT and they still sound correct.

Well, if one needs to work on MOD files, dont really give a damn about any of the fancy new features for starters, his totally fine with even the early versions of MPT as well.

Also wrong, because MPT is not getting less, but more compatible. Just look at the 1.17.03.02 changelog: Roughly 50 playback bugs have been fixed.

[uncloned]

I have to weigh in on Jojo's side here.

I still work with my older modules. Compatability is important to me.

[psishock]

uncloned:
you, me, some other people that are from past tracker era. But take a look at the new musicians (generally), that are looking for a music making software for instance. They may look for one that suits their needs the best, and can do the most tricks they want, they barely gonna care about old formats that they didnt even heard from. Old formats are slowly fading away, as the old users are using more advanced ones, and the new ones are looking for the exact same.

Jojo:
Bugfixes are super important for sure, but this has nothing to do with actual features example, they are just errors in the code that are finally corrected.

Also i'm completely aware that developers will tell the final role of the software, because they are coding it.
I just thought that it may rise from the simple old school meaning of trackers, to a suitable primary DAW choice for any musicians. I understand, but somewhat disappointed to hear, that is nowhere the aim. Two very different ways. As i've understood, the main role from the developers view is to become a super accurate, both-way compatible program with all the available legacy tracker formats.

Oh well, that is not that im personally looking for.

[Saga Musix]

Well, different developers behind MPT have different preferences and goals. My goal is certainly not to turn MPT just into another Renoise clone. If anything, then it has to be better. But my primary goal is to make it a proper 2nd generation tracker first.

[Rxn]

Since things have taken an unexpected turn here is the very question:

If the modplug community got a chance to develop Modplug 2.0,
something of entirely new level both in terms of functionality as well as
usability, something that could bring trackers to a new golden era, should
we try and do that?

[psishock]

To be honest, i've even brained about the matter more. We would have a big gap without this format combining, legacy accurate tracker, and OMPT is very much excellent for this purpose. On the other hand, Renoise has perfect approach and focus to be the "choice of modern, everyday DAW", for the people who are looking to work with the tracker gridded system, and not feel really familiar with sequencer pianorolls example. Does the job nicely, and i don't even think anything could ever overleap it, 'cause it is already focusing 100%, with great team on that primary role of his.

The two systems doesnt even need to be competitions for each other, because they both have their important role, and they are surely fulfilling them very nicely. Both great on their own field, we can use them for different purposes, as we (i'm) are doing it even now.

[Saga Musix]

Rxn: Try your luck, but don't expect it to be easy. Audio processing requires quite some knowledge. And I actually know about such a project (not necessarily MPT-centered, though), but I cannot elaborate on it at this point.

[Rxn]

Jojo, it is not I who needs to have his luck tested in this case:) The whole
community should sit down and develop thorough specifications of
functionality as well as GUI.

Psishock is probably right in saying that we should let develop OpenMPT
as it does now and start something entirely new from ground up without
looking back into the past.

[Saga Musix]

I doubt that a whole community would be useful to create a new tracker. On the contrary, the few people who would actually code this thing then would be frustrated by all the "but I want feature x to be in there as well" mails.

[Rxn]

I understand your point. The key is in having a detailed specification
beforehand approved by the developers.

Anyway, this all is "what if..." scenario. Maybe it will happen someday,
but as for now tracking community is somewhere in the desert.

[uncloned]

Dear Rxn

what would you want different?