6x6 navigation improvements: Next part selected by default + choosing Max no of parts

[LordRadish]

I think the idea of number of tracks o 6 x 6 would be a great idea. Often, with my soundscapes, I tend to use 3 or 4, so to have the option to limit it to that would save some unnecessary clicking.

[yanarchy]

Agree.

[Quad]

+1

Bonus points for using more of the screen for the number of tracks chosen (e.g, the tracks are taller).

Super bonus points for making the above work in 6x6 mode using the current number of “active” tracks. That is, you start if with one track displayed, that expands to two when you record another track, three when you add another one…

[sharifkerbage]

+1 to this!

[LordRadish]

Oooh, I really like that idea.

[LaurentB]

I already liked your proposal when you initially did it in another topic, so obviously I still agree…

[BrennanSingularSound]

@alexicon

If we can set the maximum number of parts when creating a 6x6 song, we would need no extra actions when reaching the end of a song. So like in 2x2 mode when reaching the last part Aeros would chose the first part by default. Accidental generation of song parts would never happen. No extra button presses at the end of a song.

It may be possible to set the number of parts but that is not currently a priority. We have talked about the possibility.

@alexicon

A generalisation of my second suggestion would be to allow songs with a subset of 6x6 . I have songs I treat like 2x4 for example (2 tracks, 4 parts) or 3x5 or even 1x6. If we could chose the song matrix dimensions when making a new song, we would have two concerns less while performing.

We have also toyed with this idea but it will be massively complicated to implement, so bear with us on that possibility. It is not currently a priority, the auto-record function would make 6x6 a less tap dancey on its own.

@Quad

Bonus points for using more of the screen for the number of tracks chosen (e.g, the tracks are taller).

To my point of this is not a light issue, and is really a polish not a priority.

[meadowbrook]

I agree - but as this is not a priority with Singular now - when and if they get to it (hope they do) I’d prioritize choosing # of Parts over # of Tracks. For myself, i typically know how many Parts my song is but as an improviser, a new track idea can appear anytime so the ability to add tracks & not be limited to a set number would be important to keep.

[alexicon]

Brennan next part default will be a great improvement, thank you. I sincerely hope that Max no of Parts will not need a lot of coding too, so that it can slip into your plans. I hope that it is clear now that only with both these changes in place, the 2x2 and 6x6 modes will work exactly the same (in their sequential use).

meadowbrook I agree on your prioritisation, that’s why in my proposal I first ask for choosing/fixing the no of parts (now) and only later I introduce the concept of song matrix as a generalisation (future).

[BrennanSingularSound]

Noted!

[popa]

I’ve given more attention to 6x6 mode lately.
Super +1 for this!

[Tyraell]

@alexicon

A generalisation of my second suggestion would be to allow songs with a subset of 6x6 . I have songs I treat like 2x4 for example (2 tracks, 4 parts) or 3x5 or even 1x6. If we could chose the song matrix dimensions when making a new song, we would have two concerns less while performing.

+1

[Scott_Kehn]

That is exactly what I need!
2x4 or 3x4 with auto next part following with BB

[BrennanSingularSound]

We can see the point of something like this but we do see it as an advanced feature seeing as 6x6 can be used to achieve all of this and that will be streamlined with the in progress MIDI update.

Thank you all for your feedback!

[Quad]

6x6 by itself will not achieve this, right?

[alexicon]

‘Next part selected’ needs only one initialisation statement like ‘C=1;’ instead of ‘C=0;’ in the code, so programming time would be like 1 minute. Max number of parts seems similarly changing a constant to a variable. It looks like political reasons push this implementation to the far future not technical difficulties.
Here is what I think: Big companies like Roland can afford to mutilate some of their products in order to protect the more expensive ones, but smaller companies can not afford to hold back strong sides of their products for too long.

[Wallirec]

Thank you for listening to user suggestions. It was an unpleasant surprise for me that Eros does not follow BeatBuddy in 6x6 mode. Looking forward to the update!

[Michel_TAYEB]

Hello .
Here is a suggestion, let me know what you think.
Why not remove the 2 x 2 mode and leave only the 6 x 6 mode with the possibility of choosing the number of tracks and parts before starting to record and also keep, as for the 2 x 2 mode, the change of parts with the transitions of the BEATBUDDY? Everything would be much easier to use.
Thank you.

[Pincho_Paxton]

Oh I get what you mean. Yes that seems like a good idea. I suppose in 6*6 mode you could just record what you need anyway.

[Quad]

Might be confusing if the operation of the device footswitches changes dramatically when you have more than 2 track or 2 parts.

I do see the benefit of having a simple UI with 2 tracks (mapped to two buttons) but more than 2 parts. Might be a good idea if the buttons are directly mapped to the tracks when you have two (or less) tracks in a part. But then the UI gets a little more complicated once you go above two tracks. Some issues to work out (and I doubt SS would ever go for it).

I do like the idea of being able to chose the number of parts and tracks (for other reasons). There is a feature request for this somewhere…