Forum Replies Created
Well, I guess you were right about the lack of interest.
robert wrote:Quote:So yes, it’s likely that a solid patch will be accepted by the guys. But since we’re pushing the concept behind the Nemo (keep it simple) with this new proposal, I’m not 100% sure in this case.
Well, that’s why I was excited by this:
adam wrote:Quote:The second is that this functionality wouldn’t interfere with anything existing. Anyone who never wanted to touch the expanded capacity wouldn’t have to alter the workflow at all, and from my point of view that’s a sign of a good modification. It’s invisible unless you need it.
It seems to me that you could integrate it into the existing Nemo concepts/workflow/etc. and people wouldn’t even know it was there unless they wanted to investigate.
Well, Robert, I think if we did get it built, they would adopt it. I just think waiting for them to build it might involve waiting forever. Isn’t that what happened with your step phrases (that was you, wasn’t it?)? You came up with a feature they liked so much they made it a permanent part of the OS?
1) I’m not sure it’s feasible. I’m guessing the brain (i.e. CPU and memory) of the Octopus are so cheap that they used the same parts in the Nemo, but it’s a guess. Robert, who is more knowledgeable than I, thinks it may be possible.
2) See 1.
3) Because I thought it would maybe help find a programmer.
4) Well, the money is a means to find a programmer. The end of finding a programmer, ten people or no, is the important thing. I can’t see how someone with a Nemo and the ability to do this wouldn’t want it done – Robert is an exception because he happens to also own an Octopus, so it’s somewhat redundant for him. Do you have any suggestions on how to get more attention?
Oh, and I did discuss this with Robert via email, and he took at the Nemo source code and had this to say:Quote:But there are problems. First, the code is still totally in Gabriel’s domain, i.e. all the include paths are hardcoded to point to his particular account on his home development machine. When I started working on the Octo sources I found the same problem, and I had the remove all these Gabrial’isms and generalize the code. That’s work.
The second problem is that it looks that Nemo’s 4-track interface is indeed hardcoded into the sources, at several places. So tweaking this could result is a lot of problems, testing, debugging, tweaking, etc. While of course it would be possible to change this (I’ve done major surgery in the Octo source tree), it is simply too much work for me right now.
Regarding this first issue, I believe all that is addressed in the development document available for downloading. (By addressed I mean: they walk you through the solution, but you still have to do all the labor.)
The second is suggesting that it will be a bit of work. But think of double-capacity Nemo! Imagine the glory! TAKE THE CHALLENGE.
It sure isn’t! Ha ha. aadamm, not aadaam
Robert, could you please email me at aadaam [at] mac [dot] com? I see no way to PM on these boards.
Well, the idea is, you would want the double notes at the end so that it stays in sync with other tracks of the same length. i.e. a 16 step track in pingpong stays locked to a 16 step track playing forwards. If it worked your way, it would effectively be playing 16 steps over 15 (assuming you have it playing with forward-running 16 step tracks), which definitely could by nice, but is a little harder to intuitively deal with.
As to the timing of the doubled note being off, that sounds like a problem, but my Nemo is in transit so I can’t confirm that this is the case on mine yet.
Oh, my bad, I wasn’t thinking of track chaining. I was thinking of hypersteps. Every once in a while I accidentally set up a hyperstep and that’s when I panic.
My preferred solution is to panic.
Uhhhh…no. You’ve got something wrong. The step length can be up to 16 units (of whatever a unit represents as determined by track speed) on the step level, plus the track scaling can take that up to a factor of 2, so 32 units.
I would also like this.
You can’t use the Unitor 8 in some sort of standalone mode? I have a similar looking MIDIsport 8×8 and I can set it up to re-route midi inputs however I please with a software driver and then operate it without a computer. Meaning I can do exactly what you’re asking using only MIDI cables, Hanz.
I don’t believe there’s a workaround because it’s a glitch. I’ve run into too and it was making me CRAZY.
The idea is that you’re using different tracks for different pitches. That’s all. If they optimized the defaults for track chaining, it wouldn’t make much sense when you weren’t chaining tracks.
A suggestion: Spend some time making a couple of "blank" pages with the defaults set that you like for certain purposes and keep them in off in a distant corner of the grid. Then you have a set of defaults in the length of time it takes to copy/paste a page (< 1 second!) and you don’t waste time setting up over and over.