Navigation by Routing

[okaino]

Excellent ideas guys! Would love to see this!

[selig]

So we all love to route things up how about this. It would be a much quicker way to have the fun of routing a sound up to a device that is a mile down the rack. We have all been there trying to slave or way down the rack a good 30 seconds just to connect side chain to the bass compressor and when we are half way down the rack we realise that we could have just right clicked found the device in the list and route but it just spoils the fun and adventure of routing.

What if with the navigation bar at the side you could just snap to the approximate location of the device you want to route and with cable in mouse you go to that location.

I typically use many racks side by side, and don't have navigation on by default (never found a use for it TBH). With racks side by side, the navigation sidebar shrinks each rack to an extremely small size. This would make it nearly impossible to choose a destination accurately with my workflow.

So long as there is only one rack of gear, this idea can work great. But I worry it would quickly break down when using multiple racks side by side - or am I missing something here?

[AttenuationHz]

So we all love to route things up how about this. It would be a much quicker way to have the fun of routing a sound up to a device that is a mile down the rack. We have all been there trying to slave or way down the rack a good 30 seconds just to connect side chain to the bass compressor and when we are half way down the rack we realise that we could have just right clicked found the device in the list and route but it just spoils the fun and adventure of routing.

What if with the navigation bar at the side you could just snap to the approximate location of the device you want to route and with cable in mouse you go to that location.

I typically use many racks side by side, and don't have navigation on by default (never found a use for it TBH). With racks side by side, the navigation sidebar shrinks each rack to an extremely small size. This would make it nearly impossible to choose a destination accurately with my workflow.

So long as there is only one rack of gear, this idea can work great. But I worry it would quickly break down when using multiple racks side by side - or am I missing something here?

No it would not work well for multiple racks side by side on a small screen at least for how the scrolling works currently. Suppose the easiest way to stop it from scrolling would be the if's! If you are intentionally routing that way you would have a cable on the mouse so if you have a cable the normal navigation is not on. Another way to fix that would be to have the ability to lock the navigation to single rack until you would go to the very side of the panel like how moving stuff around works it could move to the next window when the position is detected. DPI wise you can make out the approximate location of were you would be scrolling to no mater the size a device could be 10x14 pixel or whatever it may be and there would be enough there to go on the approximate location. Because its dpi related it would be as accurate as the current zoom. Of course it would help if in theory the cable snapped to the nearest in/out on the back also.

It would work best on single rack view though! Couldn't see myself not using the nav pane think I had a mini stroke one time when I turned it off!

[etyrnal]

I typically use many racks side by side, and don't have navigation on by default (never found a use for it TBH). With racks side by side, the navigation sidebar shrinks each rack to an extremely small size. This would make it nearly impossible to choose a destination accurately with my workflow.

So long as there is only one rack of gear, this idea can work great. But I worry it would quickly break down when using multiple racks side by side - or am I missing something here?

No it would not work well for multiple racks side by side on a small screen at least for how the scrolling works currently. Suppose the easiest way to stop it from scrolling would be the if's! If you are intentionally routing that way you would have a cable on the mouse so if you have a cable the normal navigation is not on. Another way to fix that would be to have the ability to lock the navigation to single rack until you would go to the very side of the panel like how moving stuff around works it could move to the next window when the position is detected. DPI wise you can make out the approximate location of were you would be scrolling to no mater the size a device could be 10x14 pixel or whatever it may be and there would be enough there to go on the approximate location. Because its dpi related it would be as accurate as the current zoom. Of course it would help if in theory the cable snapped to the nearest in/out on the back also.

It would work best on single rack view though! Couldn't see myself not using the nav pane think I had a mini stroke one time when I turned it off!

Perfectly fine. Having to navigate the rack sideways is a heck of a lot better than having to shoot all the way up and down in the whole rack. Instead of thinking about what would make it not work, we should be thinking about what would make it work. Like for example a 1 or 2 second lag. Figuring how to make that work properly is a microscopic fraction of the difficulty of figuring out how all the DSP Works going on in the background can be done.

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk

[AttenuationHz]

No it would not work well for multiple racks side by side on a small screen at least for how the scrolling works currently. Suppose the easiest way to stop it from scrolling would be the if's! If you are intentionally routing that way you would have a cable on the mouse so if you have a cable the normal navigation is not on. Another way to fix that would be to have the ability to lock the navigation to single rack until you would go to the very side of the panel like how moving stuff around works it could move to the next window when the position is detected. DPI wise you can make out the approximate location of were you would be scrolling to no mater the size a device could be 10x14 pixel or whatever it may be and there would be enough there to go on the approximate location. Because its dpi related it would be as accurate as the current zoom. Of course it would help if in theory the cable snapped to the nearest in/out on the back also.

It would work best on single rack view though! Couldn't see myself not using the nav pane think I had a mini stroke one time when I turned it off!

Perfectly fine. Having to navigate the rack sideways is a heck of a lot better than having to shoot all the way up and down in the whole rack. Instead of thinking about what would make it not work, we should be thinking about what would make it work. Like for example a 1 or 2 second lag. Figuring how to make that work properly is a microscopic fraction of the difficulty of figuring out how all the DSP Works going on in the background can be done.

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk

No truer word spoken!

[joeyluck]

While two finger swipe on my trackpad to quickly scroll in any direction works pretty good for me on Mac, I have an idea...

What if there were instead an option for 'routing only' views when viewing the back of the rack?

When in this mode, many devices could collapse to "half rack" or 1U devices (or however small they can); making area to travel between connections much shorter. Essentially their backsides would compress to the smallest possible form. And to save RE developer's the time and effort (not having to create a separate back-side view), theses back plates would be something generic generated by Propellerhead/Reason with labels of the devices at the top of each.

Currently, with the traditional collapsing, connections are not accessible.

It could be in the traditional rack form factor, or maybe a separate Eurorack style setup. It would not replace the current way of routing, it would just be a different option in which to view it. And you could always switch back. Maybe even separate views for CV only, audio only, and both audio and CV?

After all we do have to use a bit of imagination when flipping the rack currently; as racks that are on the right side of other racks from the front remain on the right side on the back...

[etyrnal]

While two finger swipe on my trackpad to quickly scroll in any direction works pretty good for me on Mac, I have an idea...

What if there were instead an option for 'routing only' views when viewing the back of the rack?

When in this mode, many devices could collapse to "half rack" or 1U devices (or however small they can); making area to travel between connections much shorter. Essentially their backsides would compress to the smallest possible form. And to save RE developer's the time and effort (not having to create a separate back-side view), theses back plates would be something generic generated by Propellerhead/Reason with labels of the devices at the top of each.

Currently, with the traditional collapsing, connections are not accessible.

It could be in the traditional rack form factor, or maybe a separate Eurorack style setup. It would not replace the current way of routing, it would just be a different option in which to view it. And you could always switch back. Maybe even separate views for CV only, audio only, and both audio and CV?

After all we do have to use a bit of imagination when flipping the rack currently; as racks that are on the right side of other racks from the front remain on the right side on the back...

I hate keeping any devices folded in my rack. It just wastes time of having to fold and unfold things. I always leave everything unfolded and just drag the navigator to the right up and down to get where I want to go quickly or actually normally you can just click right on where you want to jump to. I don't know why anybody bothers to fold their gear up it makes no sense to me.

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk

[joeyluck]

While two finger swipe on my trackpad to quickly scroll in any direction works pretty good for me on Mac, I have an idea...

What if there were instead an option for 'routing only' views when viewing the back of the rack?

When in this mode, many devices could collapse to "half rack" or 1U devices (or however small they can); making area to travel between connections much shorter. Essentially their backsides would compress to the smallest possible form. And to save RE developer's the time and effort (not having to create a separate back-side view), theses back plates would be something generic generated by Propellerhead/Reason with labels of the devices at the top of each.

Currently, with the traditional collapsing, connections are not accessible.

It could be in the traditional rack form factor, or maybe a separate Eurorack style setup. It would not replace the current way of routing, it would just be a different option in which to view it. And you could always switch back. Maybe even separate views for CV only, audio only, and both audio and CV?

After all we do have to use a bit of imagination when flipping the rack currently; as racks that are on the right side of other racks from the front remain on the right side on the back...

I hate keeping any devices folded in my rack. It just wastes time of having to fold and unfold things. I always leave everything unfolded and just drag the navigator to the right up and down to get where I want to go quickly or actually normally you can just click right on where you want to jump to. I don't know why anybody bothers to fold their gear up it makes no sense to me.

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk

Yeah I don't find the current folding very helpful because no connections are accessible. And I only use the navigator as reference when I'm swiping to quickly move between devices while making cable connections.

This other idea though wouldn't collapse the devices completely and wouldn't affect the front view. It could be seen as just a separate patch bay view.

[selig]

I don't know why anybody bothers to fold their gear up it makes no sense to me.

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk

I can say just the opposite - I don’t know why anyone would not understand the benefit of folding the devices in the rack!

This is one reason it’s so difficult for users (including myself) to design a big app like a DAW. It’s because we cannot imagine why anyone would ever want to work any way except for the way that makes the most sense to US.

I’m guessing the Props understand BOTH of our workflows, which is why they are both provided for in Reason!


Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk

[ejanuska]

I'm a semi-folder. When the device is where I want it I fold it. Why leave it open? It's in the way.
The OPs idea is great.

[AttenuationHz]

The thing about the routing by navigation would to unfold collapsed devices anyway! Like how Hovering over an arrow with a cable opens a device!

[etyrnal]

The thing about the routing by navigation would to unfold collapsed devices anyway! Like how Hovering over an arrow with a cable opens a device!

Yeah, and hovering over a device to unfold it takes about three and a half Forevers. This is another reason why I think folding the devices just waste time. It's as far as I can tell purely a visual preference. And doesn't seem to provide ultimately any benefit. Especially with the existence of the Navigator.

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk

[etyrnal]

I don't know why anybody bothers to fold their gear up it makes no sense to me.

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk

I can say just the opposite - I don’t know why anyone would not understand the benefit of folding the devices in the rack!

This is one reason it’s so difficult for users (including myself) to design a big app like a DAW. It’s because we cannot imagine why anyone would ever want to work any way except for the way that makes the most sense to US.

I’m guessing the Props understand BOTH of our workflows, which is why they are both provided for in Reason!


Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk

They should make a special Easter egg for you then, the way it works is if you leave your device is unfolded in a project for a long time they start to visually accumulate dust and if you fold them up they don't. So the longer you leave them unfolded the dusty or they look, but if you fold them up they look shiny clean again.

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk

[etyrnal]

I don't know why anybody bothers to fold their gear up it makes no sense to me.

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk

I can say just the opposite - I don’t know why anyone would not understand the benefit of folding the devices in the rack!

This is one reason it’s so difficult for users (including myself) to design a big app like a DAW. It’s because we cannot imagine why anyone would ever want to work any way except for the way that makes the most sense to US.

I’m guessing the Props understand BOTH of our workflows, which is why they are both provided for in Reason!


Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk

By the way, I was in no way suggesting that folding shouldn't exist. I'm just saying, that for me, from a production point of view, it doesn't make sense to me to fold up a device just because you feel like folding it up, and then later on have to unfold it again when you need to interact with the device and having to do this hundreds of times for various devices over the production it just seems like hundreds of wasted clicks to me. There's so many tools available to instantly navigate around and know exactly where you are and what's related to what that to me the folding and unfolding really just seems like something that's done more for a feeling then for any benefit which is specific production.

I also shudder at the idea of having to open up a song again 8 months from now and have to unfold 40 or 50 devices just to figure out what's what. I'd rather have the Rack open to just exactly how I remember it looking and being able to see the relationships to everything in 1 instant glance.


I didn't even used to fold when I used to write music on a tiny 13in Mac laptop.

For people who are folders, what is the Supreme benefit derived from folding?

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk

[selig]

I can say just the opposite - I don’t know why anyone would not understand the benefit of folding the devices in the rack!

This is one reason it’s so difficult for users (including myself) to design a big app like a DAW. It’s because we cannot imagine why anyone would ever want to work any way except for the way that makes the most sense to US.

I’m guessing the Props understand BOTH of our workflows, which is why they are both provided for in Reason!


Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk

They should make a special Easter egg for you then, the way it works is if you leave your device is unfolded in a project for a long time they start to visually accumulate dust and if you fold them up they don't. So the longer you leave them unfolded the dusty or they look, but if you fold them up they look shiny clean again.

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk

Huh???


Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk

[AttenuationHz]

Yeah, and hovering over a device to unfold it takes about three and a half Forevers.

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk

In which time you can contemplate your lack of enthusiasm.

[etyrnal]

Yeah, and hovering over a device to unfold it takes about three and a half Forevers.

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk

In which time you can contemplate your lack of enthusiasm.

Why anybody should ever be enthused about functionality that slows down your workflow is a mystery that I don't feel there's any need to solve.

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk

[AttenuationHz]

In which time you can contemplate your lack of enthusiasm.

Why anybody should ever be enthused about functionality that slows down your workflow is a mystery that I don't feel there's any need to solve.

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk

I was talking about the topic of conversation.