ccherrett / oom

The Open Octave Project exists to provide professional level orchestral midi orchestration tools.
http://www.openoctave.org
GNU General Public License v2.0
82 stars 19 forks source link

Automation lanes #36

Closed alekz49 closed 13 years ago

alekz49 commented 13 years ago

Automation lanes are currently drawn over an existing track, which tends to make a mess of both viewing the wav peak, and trying to determine the exact path of the automation drawn.

My suggestion is:

Create a sub-track function for an existing wav track, coupled with a button and corresponding shortcut (toggle), to "open/shut" the wav track's automation lane. The user highlights the wav track, hits the hide/view button, and the subtrack appears under the highlighted wav track, with the header indented, to ensure easy identification of the automation lane with it's parent wav track.

The subtrack/automation lane can contain more than 1 automation type, with the most common being volume and pan. If any plugins are insert in the mixer strip for the wav track, these are going to show up too, so in the track header, right click, and check/uncheck the automation you want shown.

It has been the case that some apps have a shown a separate lane for each automation type, but this can extend into many lanes for the associated parent wav track, and is unwieldy to use in normal workflow. One lane is sufficient, and we simply view/hide what we want to see at that moment in time.

The current mechanism for hiding/viewing automation types (volume, pan, etc) is a list of checkboxes that can be accessed from the automation column in the trackheader "spreadsheet". I propose this be moved to the normal rightclick menu for the track. The menu should have the regular features, delete track, and comments (plus any additions for administration of the track), following by a separator, then list the current automation types.

This is as simple as it gets, and the user should quickly adapt to this layout, because of the simplicity.

alekz49 commented 13 years ago

This is being worked on, as a simple implementation first, so this issue is no longer valid.