Parent/child idea

[lostylost]

Sibling relationship sounds far better indeed. So you could control any of the group from any of the group? All the little brothers and sisters taking turns as leaders? Would be more convenient. A `leader` toggle box maybe.

[fooks]

lol@losty "weee..."

wouldn't all thoes setting eat up power or something?

one thing i have wondered was, does all thoes settings in a riff run when you play it?

even if the layer is muted?

[Billcrichmond]

I totally agree about this linkage (be it sibling or parent/child). This would have helped me numerous times!

What I would also like to see:
- Copy layers between riffs
- Info for IDs & REX (for muting, fades, etc.)
- Copy/paste functionality (ever written stuff in a riff's note, wanted similar stuff for another one, but had to type the whole thing out?)

There's obviously more, but I think these (along with Auckalnd's idea) are relatively easy to implement, would provide great value to the user's, and keeps in line with the RW concept of KISS.

So, Sonama. When can we expect to see these enhancements?

[geocare]

Hey guys, I'm late to the discussion but I'll be a smartass and point out one thing you've overlooked. Before RW came along, I didn't think I could ever improve my computer mouse skills. Boy, was I wrong!

OK, seriously, as a guy who uses mulitple tracks per Riff and usually many Riffs per song, having some way to do global tweaks among Riffs would be a godsend, absolutely. On the other hand, the Sonoma engineers have used the program enough to recognize this, I'd guess. So, I wonder what they would say? I don't know crap about programming, but maybe such a tool is very difficult to add, given the current infrastructure of the program.

[Auckland]

Losty and Atal, I see what you are saying, and those are indeed good thoughts. Maybe they are more addressing general mixing/modifyiing than I was thinking, but nonetheless good seed ideas.

My drift was more narrow, being the idea of song buildup from core riffs as they get oopied and built-upon in the song. Keeping the core controllable across the board, no matter where the copied riffs are or how much more is added to them, is my wish. And yes, the individual layers would have to be addressed, as that is where most of the changes would be. I guess if a riff activated as a parent would globally apply any layer changes to children, that would be fine.

But I'm talking about implementing this very, very simply, with a color-coded checkbox or something. Getting into busses and submixes would be a more complicated move toward wide-span mixing.

[lostylost]

A few (admittedly over simplistic) thoughts...

Stability > Ease Of Use > Usefulness

Stability arises from simplicity of implementation
Ease of use arises from simplicity of interface
Usefulness arises from complexity of implementation (and interface)

Simplicity of interface arises from? Well not always simplicity of
implementation.

"As simple as possible, but no simpler"

From all that:

It's easier to get something useful from something simple but the upper extremes
of usefulness cost in (hidden) complexity.

Ideally it would be a super stable, simple as possible (possibly complex)
implementation of extreme usefullness with a simple as possible (possibly
complex) interface. Hidden complexity.

Then there is the `Cost` of implementation factor.
So it's tradeoffs and compromises

Where is the right balance? If stability were a given and you had all the time
in the world (Cost) it would then be a case of weighing up between ease of use
(interface) and usefullness (features).

What we all love about RW is it's minimal uncluttered interface and ease of use.
If that were kept but some more features were added we'd all be happy. It's
simplicity of interface we desire, we don't care about the hidden gears.

People might argue that they are having stability issues already so introducing
more complexity (features) would be silly.

However where are those stability issues coming from?

If it's mainly from the RiffLink part then they could afford for example to push
the complexity lever if they are in `single player` mode. It doesn't
necessarily have to be an `all or nothing` thing.

Being able to move layers in between riffs (of like tempo/length) would be a
*huge* Usefullness + IMO

... the Sonoma engineers have used the program enough to recognize this, I'd guess. So, I wonder what they would say? I don't know crap about programming, but maybe such a tool is very difficult to add, given the current infrastructure of the program.

Yeah, their wish lists probably dwarf anything we have. Anyway, it's just discussion of ideals for a 3.0 release.

[Auckland]

Losty, I would say that when I am president, you are hired.

For now, grab your axe and dance!

Auckie

[lostylost]

when I am president, you are hired.

To record music and research human flight/dance to said music ? And film with high speed cameras said dances to create slow mo music videos? With 2 way radios so fliers can hear the music in sync with each other?

Like link below but imagine footage like from wimbledon tennis with Roger Feder in flight.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2wmHR2hQAA

So if you have a job like that LOL

`Sinister Minister Of Flight`

[lostylost]

Check these guys out

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6U00RriOrI&NR=1

Seriously they make that look SOOO easy but it's *really* hard.

[fooks]

looks like alot of fun. :O

lol, i would like to try that place that has the fans that will keep you up like that.

they have a big fan in the ground that blows upwards and people rent time to practice stuff like that.

i think the one i saw was in fla.?

[lostylost]

Yeah fooks Florida Vertical Wind Tunnel

You should give it a go!

At the least! (Maybe do a tandem or a first jump course where you jump by yourself)

It's an awesome experience

I did about a 1000 jumps in my youth though never got anywhere near that level of skill. The level of concentration needed to do that is intense...

Those guys are like the Jimi's of skydiving. Creativity / Technicality awesomeness ness ness