Re: Parameter group duplicating

[Vectrex]

hmm, I'm not sure what you mean here. I'm assuming you mean the sequencer has a 
fixed reference to a parameter and that adding more parameters runtime might 
mess 
things up? I'm not much of a programmer and haven't looked properly at the 
octal api, but I'd imagine the only trouble might be something like adding 3 
lfo's and 
removing the second one, although I'd only allow adding/removal from the end 
(like buzz tracks)

>I hadn't thought of this. I'm not sure how straightforward it would be
>to alter the number of parameters at run time. However, I suspect there
>could be an elegant solution where we allow some machines to interpret
>the sequencer channel number differently. That is, instead of
>interpreting it like a MIDI channel, allow the channel number to index
>the "new" oscillators.
>
>I'll keep this in mind, doesn't sound terribly hard to implement on the
>host end. 
>
>
>On Fri, 2002-09-13 at 00:13, Vectrex wrote:
>> Just like to mention an idea for putting in a provision for machines to be 
>> able to duplicate groups of parameters. What I mean would be similar to what 
>> some 
buzz 
>> machines do now by putting some things like the lfo in the track section so 
>> the user can add more tracks to get more lfo's. This is really a hack so 
>> it'd be 
nice 
>> to have this done properly for octal. I heard that the machines will 
>> probably be able to group parameters into windows explorer style groups so 
>> (if the machine 
>> allows it) it'd be nice to right click on the group name and add a 
>> duplicate. This adds a nice amount of flexibility in what machines can do 
>> without going too 
nuts 
>> with modular stuff. If you have no idea what I'm talking about fire up buzz 
>> and add tracks to the ld0d jacinth. It's great because it starts nice and 
>> simple 
with 
>> just one lfo/env section, but you can add upto 16 in the track section! But 
>> this gets REAL messy in buzz
>> 
>> Cameron Bonde
>> www.imaginemysurprise.net
>