View Single Post
Old 07-05-2010, 04:04 PM   #34
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,221

i don't want to keep sticking my head in here but this is a good time to say this:

i'd love all the features that would go on this "midi track" but i don't want a new track type specifically for vst/vsti. what i'd rather have is enhanced TCP control options for the dynamic track type we have now:

* hideable existing TCP controls (volume fader, pan, mute, solo, etc)
* reassignable existing TCP controls (volume, pan) to aliasable CC
* option to treat TCP volume fader as a TCP fx control (ie add multiple freely configurable horizontal faders - as it is now, all TCP fx control are knobs)

this, coupled with existing js fx for velocity control, transpose, etc offer an enormous amount of midi track control that is already there, just a little less handle-able

the trouble comes in when you say that this is a "midi track." such TCP/MCP control flexibility would be equally as important for tracks with just audio items and VST fx.

it's my opinion that the current "omnitrack" concept is definitely the way to go - TCP controls simply need to get opened up a little bit. and, again in my opinion, with TCP fx controls we're more than halfway there.
plamuk is offline   Reply With Quote