Deprecated: mysql_connect(): The mysql extension is deprecated and will be removed in the future: use mysqli or PDO instead in /storage/content/49/145849/famitracker.com/public_html/forum/classes/dbHandler.php on line 29
FamiTracker
You know, sometimes, we can forget what these does, and what we use them for, so I was wondering if it is possible to able to name the Wave #, like 8 letters limited, to save time. Like:
N 01: Metal pack
W#01: Guitar
W#02: Drums..
..
W#15(0F?): Electric
So we could be more organized with what they do, we could work a little faster without wasting couple of seconds on checking each instruments and play that sounds to see if it's the right sounds or not, and we could save more space for instruments.
Where should it appear: Between "Wave #" and "Wave RAM settings" category.
Naming the different waves in an instrument would be quite useful, so I second this idea. There are cases where a wave macro sequence would be used so I find it to be a problem here, so maybe a checkbox or some other system to name all the waves the same would be useful too, since I don't see the point in naming all the waves of a sequence differently.
Well, what you explained would be neat to have into the tracker. I also got lost when I used lots of waves in my instruments because I didn't know what they did.
[quote=Mr_Master]Naming the different waves in an instrument would be quite useful, so I second this idea. There are cases where a wave macro sequence would be used so I find it to be a problem here, so maybe a checkbox or some other system to name all the waves the same would be useful too, since I don't see the point in naming all the waves of a sequence differently.
Well, what you explained would be neat to have into the tracker. I also got lost when I used lots of waves in my instruments because I didn't know what they did.[/quote]
Because sometimes, one name for 15 instruments would not be organizable, like what Mr.Master saided. A checkmark for "no Wave #" what he requested would also be cool.
Edit: Wait..store the info. in the instument name as it was already? or store the info. as some kind of new category which list all of the added wave? I'm confused.
He means the default instrument name, the one you give to every new instrument you create in a module. You create the instrument and name it in a way so it describes all the waves inside. The only problem here is that the character limit would be reached easily.
Well, there is always a chance that a mistake or wrong use of the instrument that you don't want will be involve in it instead of the other instruments you intended to put.
The bigger question is, why aren't you creating many instruments to suit your need? You can name them all as you like. Instead you are doing something that really isn't necessary. Having one instrument with a bunch of different instruments on it is fine, but the main idea for that is to create modulation effects for one waveform, or some such other technique.
Yeah I agree, use different instruments for waves that are unrelated to each other and that should solve your problem. I don't see the point grouping all waves to few instruments, most modules I've seen doesn't come close to 64 instruments anyway.
I did, but I have difficulties re-arranging the instruments; by deep-cloning it, deleting original, and others.
I'm not like everyone with common-sense that can just do things so easily, even with unorganized instruments they can do that sounds completely correct. The comment-feature, I use it so much, I get off-track and add anything I learned...
Because I often get really unorganized the more instruments I made, and I often reached the limit of 64 instruments.
It's really difficult to explain a good-detailed reason...
.jpg)
