View Single Post
Old 03-01-2012, 09:37 AM   #309
Banned
Human being with feelings
 
Banned's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Unwired (probably in the proximity of Amsterdam)
Posts: 4,868
Default

I think the directionality of the current OSC configuration is still unclear in many cases, and should be improved by using less ambiguous names and clearer concepts.

For one important example, the concept of
Code:
TRACK_FOLLOWS DEVICE, LAST_TOUCHED
currently works the wrong way around, and should rather be named something like
Code:
DEVICE_TRACK_SELECTION_FOLLOWS SELF, LAST_TOUCHED_IN_REAPER
Of course we still need something like
Code:
TRACK_FOLLOWS
However, I think a better name would be
Code:
REAPER_TRACK_SELECTION_FOLLOWS
and the allowed arguments should somehow refer to the specific control surface, e.g. using its "Device name". What control surface(s) REAPER's track selection should follow should be a setting specific to REAPER, not to a particular (OSC) control surface.

I haven't even tested this yet (and I probably will ), but since multiple (OSC) control surfaces are allowed, each with its separate state, and thus selected track, I can think of many nightmare scenario's with the current configuration.

Control surface device names could also be used as arguments in messages to set other control surface devices' states, so that e.g. device 1 may follow the selection made by device 2 as well.
__________________
˙lɐd 'ʎɐʍ ƃuoɹʍ ǝɥʇ ǝɔıʌǝp ʇɐɥʇ ƃuıploɥ ǝɹ,noʎ
Banned is offline   Reply With Quote