someone kick me next time i come up with an idea to run off and do instead of the todo stuff!
the todo commands that i:
- context menu control
XHip--Please finish your synth!!
-
- KVRAF
- 12615 posts since 7 Dec, 2004
oops i havent been following my todo list
someone kick me next time i come up with an idea to run off and do instead of the todo stuff!
the todo commands that i:
- context menu control
someone kick me next time i come up with an idea to run off and do instead of the todo stuff!
the todo commands that i:
- context menu control
-
- KVRian
- 673 posts since 15 Nov, 2004 from Montevideo, Uruguay
I dig those chiptunes, cpufunk is great!
I've been trying different layouts. This one, while not extremely efficient, looked nice. I'm not entirely happy with it though, I liked some things in the old one.
I put some kind of waveform dependent area in the oscillators. I'm experimenting with some graphic labels too.
Comments please!
[^SCROLL ME]
A couple of more questions:
What do the values in "Range" mean?
I just noted that there is no A+B option when selecting a modulator for amplitude or panning. I suspect there is some low level reason involved in this decision?
Oh, and I don't see sustain pedal support in the TODO list...
I've been trying different layouts. This one, while not extremely efficient, looked nice. I'm not entirely happy with it though, I liked some things in the old one.
I put some kind of waveform dependent area in the oscillators. I'm experimenting with some graphic labels too.
Comments please!
[^SCROLL ME]
A couple of more questions:
What do the values in "Range" mean?
I just noted that there is no A+B option when selecting a modulator for amplitude or panning. I suspect there is some low level reason involved in this decision?
Mmmm, where, exactly?acidose wrote:- added options to resync several parts of xhip on note-on
Oh, and I don't see sustain pedal support in the TODO list...
Last edited by gsoto on Sun Jan 28, 2007 11:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- KVRAF
- 4669 posts since 26 Sep, 2005 from U.A.E
-
- KVRAF
- 7032 posts since 28 Apr, 2004 from france
Gsoto, i'"m so glad to see a skin 
!
The very nice thing that were iin the "old" one is (to my sense) that it was both very clean (surgical) and freestyle, with something like 60's bubble design (barbapapa !).
This one is more "square", and I liked the free configuration and "wormesque" of the old one.
The words lacks me a little bit, so here is a quick sketch of what i mean (little connections to some modules, making the thing less "square")...
(I really don't want to "hack" your work, i hope you won't take it badly, as i have put some drawings on your GUI, but sometimes it is easier to get understood when we're in the same room, and here english is a frontier to quick & easy understanding
).
Very glad to see that this GUI comes to life !
The color scheme is killer !
!The very nice thing that were iin the "old" one is (to my sense) that it was both very clean (surgical) and freestyle, with something like 60's bubble design (barbapapa !).
This one is more "square", and I liked the free configuration and "wormesque" of the old one.
The words lacks me a little bit, so here is a quick sketch of what i mean (little connections to some modules, making the thing less "square")...
(I really don't want to "hack" your work, i hope you won't take it badly, as i have put some drawings on your GUI, but sometimes it is easier to get understood when we're in the same room, and here english is a frontier to quick & easy understanding
).Very glad to see that this GUI comes to life !
The color scheme is killer !
-
- KVRist
- 411 posts since 6 Jul, 2004 from Richmond, TX
i think this layout is even more clear than the previous one, i like it a lot.
don't the lfos have a pulse and sine wave though?
and would only osc b have supersaw capability?
mod 1 and 2 will also need tempo-sync buttons and a way to select the sync speed.
don't the lfos have a pulse and sine wave though?
and would only osc b have supersaw capability?
mod 1 and 2 will also need tempo-sync buttons and a way to select the sync speed.
FREE MUSIC NO MONEY DOWN
http://joeyhoney.blogspot.com/
http://joeyhoney.blogspot.com/
-
- KVRAF
- 12615 posts since 7 Dec, 2004
i added sustain to the todo.
range is the value the frequency is 'divided by', its a classic way to show the octave control. i'm not sure where this originally came from, but 8 means (1/1), generally, 16 means (1/2), 4 (2/1), etc. you can use whatever labels you like on the gui, i prefer the ones already used though, and i think mostly these are standard representations and most users will also prefer them. (of course you know about the 'saw' vs. 'ramp' issues, but xhip can change the world i think, so there is some freedom available. you'll have to convince me why the other label is better though
the new sync options are found as the last option in osc sync (trigger) and envelope trigger (reset). i need to change the label on the osc sync to "reset" as well to be more uniform.
lap; http://xhip.cjb.net/temp/public/bs-darkdroptwo.adxi
you should use http://xhip.cjb.net/upload for files since they'll then be available to everyone and archived there for the future. in this patch i applied the inverse envelope depth to the main osc, resulting in the equiv. of as if you applied a positive pitch envelope only to osc.a.
the osc and filter envelopes are not exactly matched, so a depth of +100% on an oscillator actually matches to +40% on the filter. the filter's envelope range is 2.5x the oscillators. i'm not sure if this should be changed..
http://xhip.cjb.net/temp/public/mrspock.adxi
range is the value the frequency is 'divided by', its a classic way to show the octave control. i'm not sure where this originally came from, but 8 means (1/1), generally, 16 means (1/2), 4 (2/1), etc. you can use whatever labels you like on the gui, i prefer the ones already used though, and i think mostly these are standard representations and most users will also prefer them. (of course you know about the 'saw' vs. 'ramp' issues, but xhip can change the world i think, so there is some freedom available. you'll have to convince me why the other label is better though
the new sync options are found as the last option in osc sync (trigger) and envelope trigger (reset). i need to change the label on the osc sync to "reset" as well to be more uniform.
lap; http://xhip.cjb.net/temp/public/bs-darkdroptwo.adxi
you should use http://xhip.cjb.net/upload for files since they'll then be available to everyone and archived there for the future. in this patch i applied the inverse envelope depth to the main osc, resulting in the equiv. of as if you applied a positive pitch envelope only to osc.a.
the osc and filter envelopes are not exactly matched, so a depth of +100% on an oscillator actually matches to +40% on the filter. the filter's envelope range is 2.5x the oscillators. i'm not sure if this should be changed..
http://xhip.cjb.net/temp/public/mrspock.adxi
-
- KVRAF
- 12615 posts since 7 Dec, 2004
about the connections between panels on gsoto's gui - this only makes sense if they're fixed in position. with the full windowing system available in xhip, in the future we might want to drag them around, iconify them, and so on. this is already possible, not completely finished but i can finish it in a single day.
bengeorge:
"don't the lfos have a pulse and sine wave though?"
if you mean the drawings he has for the pulsewidth, those can be changed based upon which waveform is selected.
"would only osc b have supersaw capability?"
i dont think so, i think he'll solve this by doing some re-arangement of the osc panels. i think he has just added this today so it's only a test.
"mod 1 and 2 will also need tempo-sync buttons and a way to select the sync speed."
the form of the speed control can be changed based upon which mode is selected. with tempo sync i think gsoto wants to have it go into text mode by default. he wants to use the config files and/or context menus (right click on the control) to let the user change it's mode as well. it's also possible to have popups to display the text value for the parameter as you adjust it now that i have the dropbox stuff working.
bengeorge:
"don't the lfos have a pulse and sine wave though?"
if you mean the drawings he has for the pulsewidth, those can be changed based upon which waveform is selected.
"would only osc b have supersaw capability?"
i dont think so, i think he'll solve this by doing some re-arangement of the osc panels. i think he has just added this today so it's only a test.
"mod 1 and 2 will also need tempo-sync buttons and a way to select the sync speed."
the form of the speed control can be changed based upon which mode is selected. with tempo sync i think gsoto wants to have it go into text mode by default. he wants to use the config files and/or context menus (right click on the control) to let the user change it's mode as well. it's also possible to have popups to display the text value for the parameter as you adjust it now that i have the dropbox stuff working.
-
- KVRAF
- 4669 posts since 26 Sep, 2005 from U.A.E
i dont understand what you said.aciddose wrote:lap; http://xhip.cjb.net/temp/public/bs-darkdroptwo.adxi
you should use http://xhip.cjb.net/upload for files since they'll then be available to everyone and archived there for the future. in this patch i applied the inverse envelope depth to the main osc, resulting in the equiv. of as if you applied a positive pitch envelope only to osc.a.
the osc and filter envelopes are not exactly matched, so a depth of +100% on an oscillator actually matches to +40% on the filter. the filter's envelope range is 2.5x the oscillators. i'm not sure if this should be changed..
http://xhip.cjb.net/temp/public/mrspock.adxi
but i upload there in future.
love xhip. great synth.
spock is nice.
-
- KVRian
- 673 posts since 15 Nov, 2004 from Montevideo, Uruguay
sink, feel free to do whatever you like to the GUI.
The old prototype has something aesthetically pleasant as a whole, but I think that the new layout is cleaner. I don't know... I'm going to stop for a couple of days and look at them with more fresh eyes.
I'm not sure about the connections, they seem too baroque for me but I'll experiment. Aesthetics are important but I tend to keep the thing minimal.
The colors choice was completely temporary but I'm kinda liking them too.
beng, I'm thinking that maybe you didn't scroll the image?
(click on it to see the whole thing)
The outlined rectangle areas inside the oscillators are supposed to change and show different parameters depending on which waveform is selected. This is not right now in the synth, just an idea that came reading brok's suggestions.
acid, Is it possible to add independent supersaw controls for each oscillator?
What about the A+B question?:
me: "I just noted that there is no A+B option when selecting a modulator for amplitude or panning. I suspect there is some low level reason involved in this decision?".
If there's no plan to add this option I have to redesign those parameters.
The old prototype has something aesthetically pleasant as a whole, but I think that the new layout is cleaner. I don't know... I'm going to stop for a couple of days and look at them with more fresh eyes.
I'm not sure about the connections, they seem too baroque for me
but I'll experiment. Aesthetics are important but I tend to keep the thing minimal.The colors choice was completely temporary but I'm kinda liking them too.
beng, I'm thinking that maybe you didn't scroll the image?
(click on it to see the whole thing)The outlined rectangle areas inside the oscillators are supposed to change and show different parameters depending on which waveform is selected. This is not right now in the synth, just an idea that came reading brok's suggestions.
acid, Is it possible to add independent supersaw controls for each oscillator?
What about the A+B question?:
me: "I just noted that there is no A+B option when selecting a modulator for amplitude or panning. I suspect there is some low level reason involved in this decision?".
If there's no plan to add this option I have to redesign those parameters.
I'm not experienced in this area at all so I'll apreciate any suggestion. I'm always inclined to use the "correct"/standard nomenclature.acidose wrote:range is the value the frequency is 'divided by', its a classic way to show the octave control. I'm not sure where this originally came from, but 8 means (1/1), generally, 16 means (1/2), 4 (2/1), etc. you can use whatever labels you like on the gui, i prefer the ones already used though, and i think mostly these are standard representations and most users will also prefer them. (of course you know about the 'saw' vs. 'ramp' issues, but xhip can change the world i think, so there is some freedom available. you'll have to convince me why the other label is better though
-
- KVRAF
- 12615 posts since 7 Dec, 2004
ah. i wrote that post twice, first time i accidently closed the window. forgot that question the 2nd time.
i said, there is no real reason that both cant be used - but, i'm not sure when it would make sense to use both. with the panning, you should notice the control between "panning" and the modulator is actually exclusive. when the modulator is enabled, the panning control has no effect. if i allow the same "add both" option for the amplitude and panning, i have many possible options.
for the amplitude, the modulator is divided by 2, and 1/2 is added to make the range 0 ... +1, instead of -1 ... +1. if both modulators are used, i can either:
1) divide by 4 and add 1/2
2) multiply them togeather
3) clip them when they're below 0, and allow them to go above 1
4) allow them below 0
the best option in my opinion i guess will be 2, since 1 will make it so the depth of modulation decreases by half for each modulator when on the a+b mode. 3 might also be ok, it'll seem pretty natural, it is probably the same way this would be applied in an analog synth. i like 3 actually. 4 wouldnt seem natural at all.
for the panning, 1 is added to the modulator to make it's range 0 ... 2, and it is clipped at 1. this creates a shape where <50% levels linearly fade the right channel while left remains at 1. >50% linearly fades left while right remains 1.
so, i can either
1) multiply them togeather
2) clip them into range
3) do some weird extended panning effect using a delay (no!)
i do not like any of these options, although i could do 2 i guess. i should do 2 already with the panning control + modulator.
i think it might make sense to allow envelopes for panning i'm not sure. i've mostly been working on this gui stuff the last months rather than the synth (as people requested)
as for the parameter values/names, i prefer the ones i'm using of course. i cant give any more advice than that, those are the ones i personally believe are most correct.
i said, there is no real reason that both cant be used - but, i'm not sure when it would make sense to use both. with the panning, you should notice the control between "panning" and the modulator is actually exclusive. when the modulator is enabled, the panning control has no effect. if i allow the same "add both" option for the amplitude and panning, i have many possible options.
for the amplitude, the modulator is divided by 2, and 1/2 is added to make the range 0 ... +1, instead of -1 ... +1. if both modulators are used, i can either:
1) divide by 4 and add 1/2
2) multiply them togeather
3) clip them when they're below 0, and allow them to go above 1
4) allow them below 0
the best option in my opinion i guess will be 2, since 1 will make it so the depth of modulation decreases by half for each modulator when on the a+b mode. 3 might also be ok, it'll seem pretty natural, it is probably the same way this would be applied in an analog synth. i like 3 actually. 4 wouldnt seem natural at all.
for the panning, 1 is added to the modulator to make it's range 0 ... 2, and it is clipped at 1. this creates a shape where <50% levels linearly fade the right channel while left remains at 1. >50% linearly fades left while right remains 1.
so, i can either
1) multiply them togeather
2) clip them into range
3) do some weird extended panning effect using a delay (no!)
i do not like any of these options, although i could do 2 i guess. i should do 2 already with the panning control + modulator.
i think it might make sense to allow envelopes for panning i'm not sure. i've mostly been working on this gui stuff the last months rather than the synth (as people requested)
as for the parameter values/names, i prefer the ones i'm using of course. i cant give any more advice than that, those are the ones i personally believe are most correct.
-
- KVRAF
- 3528 posts since 18 Apr, 2002 from British Columbia, Canada
gsoto: i love that gui;
(the latest one, i mean)
nice work. Is that a working gui?? or just a mockup? if it works, can i test it for you?
(the latest one, i mean)
nice work. Is that a working gui?? or just a mockup? if it works, can i test it for you?
-
- KVRAF
- 12615 posts since 7 Dec, 2004
it is just a bitmap. a test version is at http://xhip.cjb.net/temp/public/adxhip_gsoto_test_4.dll
-
- KVRAF
- 6478 posts since 16 Dec, 2002
I think the main reason the old GUI was more aesthetic was simply the asymmetry of it. Think about it. Nobody has written down a rule that a synth GUI must be rectangular. That means you could go with the original very unique shape instead.gsoto wrote:The old prototype has something aesthetically pleasant as a whole, but I think that the new layout is cleaner. I don't know... I'm going to stop for a couple of days and look at them with more fresh eyes.
Sure that means a lot of dead space, if thinking in utilitarian terms, but there is also no rule that says a synth GUI must be utilitarian.
You could simply leave the dead space there and fill it with a nice ornamentation and/or texture.
Heck, it could even pave way to others to start thinking outside the box - quite literally.
-
- KVRAF
- 12615 posts since 7 Dec, 2004
the reason gsoto dropped that is due to the fact i was complaining. it is a bit of extra work, since the connecting peices, textures or whatever have to be added explicitly. it isnt a big deal though. for now it doesnt matter really, since he is just drawing examples for me and playing with the layout. the real graphical design will be done after we work out the layout and i program all the controls required. if you look at the dll i just linked to for example you should notice it looks quite a lot different than his design, since i didnt spend hours and hours mimicing it perfectly. the final gui will not look _exactly_ the way the bitmaps look. those are only intended as guides.
gsoto may decide he wants things to look a little different in many places, and we'll work toward whatever design he invisions. the colors, fonts, thickness of borders, behaviour of elements.. that can all be customized by the user in the gui's configuration file in the same way you can already customize some elements of my gui for xhip.
gsoto may decide he wants things to look a little different in many places, and we'll work toward whatever design he invisions. the colors, fonts, thickness of borders, behaviour of elements.. that can all be customized by the user in the gui's configuration file in the same way you can already customize some elements of my gui for xhip.
-
- KVRAF
- 6478 posts since 16 Dec, 2002
oh the connecting pieces wasn't what I was talking about, but the way the modules were initially arranged. It had a nice "flow" somehow.aciddose wrote:the reason gsoto dropped that is due to the fact i was complaining. it is a bit of extra work, since the connecting peices, textures or whatever have to be added explicitly.