(MINI TUTORIAL) setting up a template edit ...

[pethu]

I think it was assumed that a person only needs one "starting point" template per song.

Per song, yes. Per project, no, se specifically my statement on remote CC mapping etc. above.

Or I guess Mackie could just rename "project" a "one-song-only file structure" or something...

[Lunch Money]

So for you, a project is an album, rather than a song?

I've always done it that a song is a project. Anything else would end up being ludicrous in the "project" view panel.

My new suggestion is to completely switch the way you work. 10 songs in one project? It's something I don't even want to contemplate. What a mess it would be!

[pethu]

So for you, a project is an album, rather than a song?

I've always done it that a song is a project. Anything else would end up being ludicrous in the "project" view panel.

My new suggestion is to completely switch the way you work. 10 songs in one project? It's something I don't even want to contemplate. What a mess it would be!

Not if you know what you're doing. (Sorry, couldn't resist! ) For me, the real mess would be to have, say 4x10 active projects to constantly switch between -- instead of only 4 -- which is what I'd have to do. To each his own. But any way you argue, the way that imbedded Tracktion edit ID is perpetuated through the most thorough file transformations is lethal, period. And needs seeing to, double stop.

[Lunch Money]

Saying "period" and "double stop" only gives something an 'air' of authority. It doesn't make it so.

Don't worry, though, I didn't take your "if you know what you're doing" comment too seriously. I don't know anyone in their right mind who would do it your way, so it's hard to be offended.

Like I said, a template system could only help, not hurt.

But if we're on pet features, I think more flexibility of the project page, including having a proper 'tree' in the left pane (one level would be an album, the next level a song) is far more useful than a template feature.

It seems like such an easy thing to do, I'm sure it could be done overnight. Maybe it'll be there for us tomorrow.

Greg

[pethu]

Hmm, yes, should've put another smiley at the end there... the full stop was actually more of a musical joke

Well, let's agree to disagree on the ideal working environment... to each his own, as I said. What you do with a sequencer, and how you prefer your work/ file references organised, varies from person to person, and of course it's completely impossible to satisfy everyone.

However, leaving holes in the coding that allows people to annihilate their project structures without giving fair warning from the system, and by only using what seemingly is perfectly logical and 'legal' functions of the GUI, is never on.

As a technical writer and GUI designer, here's a very good trick that I've used lots of times to decide the level of seriousness of a program flaw, and if anything should be done about it: Imagine the warning/error message you would have to put in the system to fully explain to the user what's going on, and weigh the embarassment you would feel if having to do so against the work it takes to actually eliminate the flaw! In this case, a fully explanatory error message would have to be something like this:

A copy of this edit is already present in the current project. Putting a second copy of the edit in the same project would severely damage the project's file structure, making several entries in the project list point to the same physical file and cause errors in the project file management.

It does not help to rename or modify the first edit before importing the second - reorganize your work to use separate projects instead.

I've kickstarted more than one programmer into action with little "aha" moments like this over the years... (Note that you can actually diminsh the embarassment connected with such an error message by doing the second-best thing and rectify the terminology used in the program and documentation instead! Often turns out to be cheaper to do a proper fix, though...)

Sorry, bit of a sleeping pattern problem the the mo', all I'm capable of right now is sitting here rambling on until I'm unconscious...

[Lunch Money]

<shrug>

Does the "save" function in Word give you such a message? A counter-example only works if it works for everything. Your example works if a flaw has already been identified, but it does not identify a flaw:

A copy of this document is already present in the designated directory. Pressing "save" would severely damage the document's development history, making all traces of your previous work vanish instantaneously. If you have any interest whatsoever, as a professional editor, in maintaining version histories, we suggest using the "Save as" function instead, preferably at the beginning of each editing session so that you don't forget about it.

Saving version histories like this will render any sort of shortcuts to the previous document useless, since you will likely want to load "Nov 30 Document" next time instead of "Nov 29 Document".

As for the very last part of the statement:

Reorganize your work to use separate projects instead.

You make this sound like bad advice. To be perfectly straight with you, maybe the word "project" is a bit of a misnomer, since it CAN imply an entire album. But shooting equally as straight: it really IS intended that you have a separate project for each song. The way you're doing it is simply incorrect. Since nobody's forcing you to obey the rules, you CAN do a whole album in one project if you like. It's a free world. But do it understanding that the program wasn't designed to work that way. Each "edit" is meant to be a different version of the same song, not a collection of different songs.

Now, in Word documents, I've been known to save a Table of Contents and a paginated document together rather than separately, but I also understand the limitations and go into "page numbers" to update my book's "page 1" to say so, rather than its true document page number, which is "3".

Greg

[pethu]

I give up. You win.

[mle]

[quote="Lunch Money"]<shrug>

Does the "save" function in Word give you such a message?

Greg[/quote]

A poor analogy. Most people understand the risks involved when saving a file. People do not expect files to be overwritten when OPENING a file.

BTW, despite the risks of saving being generally understood, well-designed programs automatically autosave periodically to a backup directory, so that it is easy to recover should you incorrectly save over your file (or not save at all). It is worth noting that Tracktion's autosave feature is rather naive in comparison, merely saving destructively over your existing edit at periodic intervals.

[Lunch Money]

I give up. You win.

[djsubject]

It is worth noting that Tracktion's autosave feature is rather naive in comparison, merely saving destructively over your existing edit at periodic intervals.

periodic intervals like when you hit save?

it makes a temp file from what i can tell & this temp file gets deleated every time you periodicly hit save

AFAIKT

Subz

[big dog]

I can't find that selection when I look in the properties menu. How do I get that?

[elmcity]

I made a call to MACKIE 2day asking about templates they said they were working on it for a later update.
Thanks for this in the meantime

[IIRs]

I recorded all 7 songs for my band's demo in a single project.

Here's how I did it: I created a new project, and re-named the default edit "template".

Then I mic'ed the band, set levels, did some test recordings, mapped my UC-16 controllers to sensible destinations, and hit save.

Then, when we were ready for a proper take, I used the "save as" function to save my tweaked template edit with the name of the first song. When we had recorded a few takes of that and wanted to move on I simply returned to my "template" edit and saved it with the name of the next song. Worked a treat, and I didn't even need to deal with archives.

[skipkent]

IIRs,

Right on. I've done it the same way myself. I thought everyone did it that way!

; )

[pquenin]

I also use Tracktion this way. I have never thought to use a project for only one song.