Reaper... no pencil tools for automation?

[bmanic]

While Reaper is absolutely awesome at a lot of things there's no real point denying it: The piano roll and all of the CC data editing etc. is HORRIBLE. End of discussion. Anybody who claims otherwise is either

a) A true Reaper nerd and knows all the scripts and functions and can thus apply this knowledge and "magic" to every situation (and thus conveniently can't see the forest from the trees any more / place himself in other people's shoes.. and thus can't understand why people call it horrible/bad)

b) Never edits or does anything more than very simple things

c) Doesn't know any better as he/she only has experience with Reaper or some other horrible DAW with a clunky piano roll

Yeah.. that's my opinion and it's never changed since being a Reaper user from v2 onwards.

Thus, I use Reaper for mixing/mastering and some very light production. Anything that requires proper composing or more complex setups will start elsewhere and finish in Reaper (mixing/mastering).

I can only imagine how frustrating very basic things are for new people. Reaper is just plain clunky from the very basics.. how and when/where the mouse cursor changes to another tool etc. It's just plain unintuitive. Arguing with people who can't see this is like arguing with people who insist that GIMP is as good as Photoshop.. and as user friendly. No.. no it isn't.

/my reaper rant of the year (I do one of these each year.. now was the time)

[EvilDragon]

The main point is that it is not hard to change things with some very simple mouse modifier settings. No scripts whatsoever. Instead of ranting every year, how about actually trying changing the defaults to something more fitting? Yes, there are a lot of options. Yes, it takes time to go through them. Yes, it becomes pretty awesome once you set it up to how you want it, especially since mouse modifiers and scripts got into the game (v2 was very, very long time ago).

It's absolutely possible to compose pretty deep projects in Reaper's piano roll, and have it be quite effortless. There are people doing it! It's quite clunky by default, that is true and I'm not countering that point at all (I was there, so it's not the case of not seeing the forest from the trees - it was painful to adapt, but I simply had to go from Sonar and its antics, and FL and its antics - so scratching points A, B and C from your list right here), but there are tools to combat things. With mouse modifiers, you can get really very close to the layout of FL Studio, which is then pretty smooth to work with. I, however, found a setup for mouse modifiers that personally fits me better than any other DAW. So there you have it.

[Burillo]

Photoshop is user friendly? well that's news.

[nineofkings]

Just use ReaControlMIDI. Seriously.

[chk071]

Photoshop is user friendly? well that's news.

Yeah, indeed news, when a whole industry uses it, for its features, and its ease of use. I'm not sure whether you wanted to be saracastic or not though. You probably did, because otherwise that statement is quite... brave.

[Liero]

Just use ReaControlMIDI. Seriously.

How is ReaControlMIDI supposed to make the piano roll more user-friendly?

BTW I've also used Reaper since v2 and I still really dislike it for composing/creating. As a sound design, editing or mixing tool it the absolute best though.

[Burillo]

Photoshop is user friendly? well that's news.

Yeah, indeed news, when a whole industry uses it, for its features, and its ease of use. I'm not sure whether you wanted to be saracastic or not though. You probably did, because otherwise that statement is quite... brave.

just because it's being used across an industry doesn't mean it's "easy to use", it just means that everyone knows how to use it (and "everyone uses it because everyone uses it"). Photoshop's UI is horrible to anyone who doesn't already know how to use it.

[nineofkings]

Just use ReaControlMIDI. Seriously.

How is ReaControlMIDI supposed to make the piano roll more user-friendly?

Because you don't need to use the piano roll at all for CCs. If you use ReaControlMIDI you can simply automate its sliders and use all the power of normal automation lanes. No finicky bars required, just automate your expression/mod wheel/whatever as easily as you'd automate track volume.

[elassi]

just because it's being used across an industry doesn't mean it's "easy to use", it just means that everyone knows how to use it (and "everyone uses it because everyone uses it"). Photoshop's UI is horrible to anyone who doesn't already know how to use it.

See it the other way round: You have a specific task to do. You start PS and find every necessary tool where it (logic-wise) belongs. (2ct)

Sure, it doesn't mean that PS couldn't be improved. The 3D department is ... (ah, just forget it), simple helpers are still a question of 3rd party plugins and more than one time I ask myself why this prog has to eat that much diskspace. To name a few issues.

I know a couple of Pro's who still worked with early PS-versions for years while the program went up in version numbers, periodically. Guess Adobe did it to satisfy the feature-keen users of the non-pro segment and - eventually - push sales ("the newer, the better, the more funcs, the more sexy").

[.jon]

It probably won't ever change. MIDI CCs are not lines and curves, they are discrete data, so bars are a much more appropriate way to show them.

Everything else in a DAW is also discrete data.

MIDI editing, not just CCs is just plain terrible and buggy in Reaper, no matter how many weeks you waste tweaking and scripting, and that's probably one thing that won't ever change. The devs don't care.

[EvilDragon]

The devs don't care.

That is incorrect.

While others might whine, MIDI editor in Reaper works just fine for composing over here.

[chk071]

Photoshop is user friendly? well that's news.

Yeah, indeed news, when a whole industry uses it, for its features, and its ease of use. I'm not sure whether you wanted to be saracastic or not though. You probably did, because otherwise that statement is quite... brave.

just because it's being used across an industry doesn't mean it's "easy to use", it just means that everyone knows how to use it (and "everyone uses it because everyone uses it"). Photoshop's UI is horrible to anyone who doesn't already know how to use it.

I used GIMP for some years, and switched to Photoshop Elements at some point, and, it's MUCH easier to use. I know, it's not the same as Photoshop, but, frankly, if it was hard to use, noone would use it, unless it had a gazillion features other programs don't have. All the industry standard software is quite easy, and comfortable to use, otherwise it wouldn't be the industry standard. And, if you really think GIMP is easier to use than Photoshop, then, sorry, i really question your ability to judge ease of use.

Anyway, back to Reaper.

[yellowmix]

It probably won't ever change. MIDI CCs are not lines and curves, they are discrete data, so bars are a much more appropriate way to show them.

Everything else in a DAW is also discrete data.

MIDI editing, not just CCs is just plain terrible and buggy in Reaper, no matter how many weeks you waste tweaking and scripting, and that's probably one thing that won't ever change. The devs don't care.

You're missing the point. First of all, it's not buggy, that is the intended behavior. And to ascribe emotion to technical decisions is completely unnecessary.

Second, a DAW using discrete values "under the hood" for CC is not always the desired behavior. It's always interpolating between your points. With Reaper, you have the choice of true discrete or interpolation. Other DAWs simply don't offer that flexibility. Wouldn't it be stupid to say that those devs don't care since they're taking a choice away from you? They made a technical/political choice and that's it.

[stardustmedia]

While Reaper is absolutely awesome at a lot of things there's no real point denying it: The piano roll and all of the CC data editing etc. is HORRIBLE. End of discussion. Anybody who claims otherwise is either

a) A true Reaper nerd and knows all the scripts and functions and can thus apply this knowledge and "magic" to every situation (and thus conveniently can't see the forest from the trees any more / place himself in other people's shoes.. and thus can't understand why people call it horrible/bad)

b) Never edits or does anything more than very simple things

c) Doesn't know any better as he/she only has experience with Reaper or some other horrible DAW with a clunky piano roll

Yeah.. that's my opinion and it's never changed since being a Reaper user from v2 onwards.

Thus, I use Reaper for mixing/mastering and some very light production. Anything that requires proper composing or more complex setups will start elsewhere and finish in Reaper (mixing/mastering).

I can only imagine how frustrating very basic things are for new people. Reaper is just plain clunky from the very basics.. how and when/where the mouse cursor changes to another tool etc. It's just plain unintuitive. Arguing with people who can't see this is like arguing with people who insist that GIMP is as good as Photoshop.. and as user friendly. No.. no it isn't.

/my reaper rant of the year (I do one of these each year.. now was the time)

Agree with that.
Similar with their icons. I had to learn them, like in the old days in school. They're just intuitive for me. And when I haven't used Reaper in a while it takes a little time to "relearn".

It's not an issue when you use it daily.

But I guess that's the same for every DAW, when you switch from your regular one.

[yellowmix]

I used GIMP for some years, and switched to Photoshop Elements at some point, and, it's MUCH easier to use. I know, it's not the same as Photoshop, but, frankly, if it was hard to use, noone would use it, unless it had a gazillion features other programs don't have. All the industry standard software is quite easy, and comfortable to use, otherwise it wouldn't be the industry standard. And, if you really think GIMP is easier to use than Photoshop, then, sorry, i really question your ability to judge ease of use.

Compare it to Affinity Photo instead of GIMP. GIMP was made by software engineers for other software engineers so it's a terrible example. I've been using Adobe products for a long time, even before they were Adobe products. Before they swallowed up Aldus and Macromedia. Macromedia Freehand had a much better workflow than Illustrator has today, and the case is the same for Aldus Pagemaker and Adobe InDesign. It's hard to gauge ease-of-use because there's hardly any viable competition.