I know what you mean. We already considered this at the time where the Send-FX was implemented. At first the idea sounds exiting, but there are several issues, e.g.sircuit wrote:Anyways, @parawave: does it make technical sense (in terms of plug-in stability/CPU hit etc.) to "borrow" modulation sources between layers? Let me explain: now if I am right-clicking a knob, I have the "Modulate by.." and then it comes a selection of sources.
I'm talking about introducing a new menu in the common area for example, called "Layer", then 8 submenus, then for each layer number, the same categories - Lfo, Env, Seq. So the final result is "Modulate by.." \Layer\1\Envelope_A.
Imagine layer 1 playing short chords with 3 voices. And Layer 2 playing a long pad sound with 1 voice. Now if a voice of layer 2 borrows the LFO A of layer 1, from which of the 3 voices should the LFO be borrowed? The last active one? Okay, one solution, but now all voices of layer 2 are stopped, what's now the LFO source for layer 2?
Now one could say, okay then just borrow LFO parameters of Layer 1 and handle the LFO generation in each voice. This would require 32 LFOs instead of 4, which is a lot of unessesary stuff per voice. In this case, why would one not use the layers own LFOs? Additionally, the retrigger wouldn't reacty correclty to restart and stuff. There is so much more to consider, all related to restart and syncing.
So this and the complexity of it is just not worth it. Can't imagine a lot of things where you actually need it.
But maybe you have another thing on your mind, that would solve the modulator relation between voices of different layers.
i think i mentioned it in here before, but being able to do legato in the arp would be great. (fast 8bit arpeggio without notes retriggering, i have a soft spot for those) or maybe i have missed something? Anyways, looking forward to the update Parawave!
