> I like the idea of cloning, but it seems to me that it > happens at too > high a level (i.e. it includes all the patterns in a part, plus the > loop information). I would prefer it to happen purely at the pattern > level, so that different parts could refer to the same > pattern (rather > than sharing at the part level). When you copy a part, all the patterns in the source are ghosted to the new part, but the ghosting works at the pattern level. You can ghost a single pattern by going in to edit, and saving to a new location. Or you can go to the pattern you want to ghost to, and use the 'ghost from' option. For part copy, it would maybe be conceptually simpler if the patterns were copied to new, real patterns rather than ghosts. The idea behind ghosting every pattern by default was to make it act more like v3. Best regards, Colin Fraser Sequentix Music Systems Ltd http://www.sequentix.com
Message
RE: [analogue-sequencer] Re: v4 vs v3
2008-02-08 by Colin Fraser
Attachments
- No local attachments were found for this message.