I think so... but I'm used to a different way of doing things. It's not wrong, just different. My template has 8 tracks and 4 FX busses. But it kind of freaks me out when I add tracks and name them and the rack doesn't follow along...

Tracks and racks are separate. It would be misleading and confusing if the "+" for a track also meant "add a rack", surely? You can add a track and target anything with it, whether it's a rack, a plugin, a parameter, whatever.

That's why the default naming is in the direction it is. The track is the "blank canvas" waiting for you to write on it. Setting its target sets its default name appropriately. But if you change the trackname, it'll stay changed.

Yes..how to solve this in MUlab?..if the track and rack are connected than it must be possible to chance a name..seems to me.
So you must focus the track with a rack..

I you add a track with a instrument with the + button than automatically there is added a rack too as you noticed.
Racks can stand on their own without a track: e.g a effectrack, so there it must be possible to add a isolated rack without a track.

As i see the workflow now: if you don't want to work with the colored tracks: start first with a rack adding( and that it is also focused ) and use than the + button for a adding track.
What happens if you do it the other way around

Note: i can imagine that someone don't want to work with the colored racks( the coloring is used for the userfriendlyness to show that the rack is focussed)

Perhaps a idea to not coloring the whole rack but the rackheader only..YES i like this more , because it is more in balance with the trackheaders and attract not to much attention.
Note: it is a also a marketing thing to attract youngster to start with Mulab as i can see it now.

just wondering if you saw this?

Totally love the new version. Started to work with it even that I was in the middle of my album and I usually don't switch until I finish.

Create a rack with no track: right click in the empty rack area and Add Rack
Create a track without a rack: + button, Add Track. This track is not colored if the last rack used in uncolored (as in the New session). It's routed to the last focused rack, which can be changed.
Change rack name: Double click rack name
Change track name: double click track name
Track and rack should have the same name: create the rack first, the track will follow
Uncolor a rack/track: Choose Color and select "None"
Create an uncolored instrument track: Click the color button in the instrument selector and select "Nono" as color.
Change part color: right click on the part and Choose Color.

That means you can have, for a part that's on track x that's routed to rack y, a different name and color for the part, track header and rack. Note: an uncolored track with an uncolored part (color=none) leads to a blue part.
Or, they can all have the same name.

Looks pretty versatile.

It is... but there are too many options/variations... speaking for myself, of course. If you get used to doing things in a certain order you can consistently get what you want. But seems like someone using the program for the first time would not "get that." I don't think you should have to rename a track and a rack when connected?

A important thing here, because Mulab removed the "target" feature in Mulab3 and chance this in mulab 4 for a more userfriendly experience

Now it is you as first time user with Mulab4 who says ..the workflow is still not "get that"
I understand what you mean i think ..
Well perhaps is there still room for improvement here ?
In the old DAW it is one track and that is it, but in MUlab it comes from 2 ways ..rack and track and there are not always connected

Therefore a NOOB must always start with the colored racks ( add track with instrument) than it goes not wrong

But do you start with a new session..than the trouble begins..for NOOB( not you hé )

Well, I've been using "Mu" for years actually... but I go back to using Logic and have to review each new version. This is definitely the best, so I'm just adjusting to the new and trying to remember some of the old. Great strides have been made though and this is pretty slick!

Thanks Mihai!

That's great to hear!

Imagine you have a rack with MuDrum and you have several tracks connected to it, one for bassdrum, one for snaredrum, one for hats etc. Then if you would rename one of these tracks you don't want the rack to be renamed, do you?

Bottom line is: The modules (e.g. racks) are master!
Tracks are slave tools in function of the modules.
Mmm, may sound a bit strange, but hope it helps in explaining.

i guess you did see my question and are not interested in replying? sorry if thats the wrong idea, but its all i can deduce

Digit, sorry, i indeed missed that.

Yes i'm aware of your request, and i got it on the WL, connected to some other related aspects. I could postpone M4 and improve and extent forever, i had to draw a line somewhere. I do take this aspect serious.

would i be out of place if i said wow what a handsome program once again? the steel grey default skin is my cup of tea. it looks very capable and utilitarian. im not so much a fan of the pastel color choices but im glad someone is making it the way they like it. my wish is for a muzys skin hahaha just kidding!

boy i can see the library growing easily from this point with all the new modules and more types on the way... wooh man this will be an intense upward and outward path from now on i believe!