Ack. Open source .NET where the frameworks are much the same on Mac and Win? Nice.
Re: Python ... I couldn't even imagine doing even a relatively simple UI like that in Python.
Macro Editor (Windows)
-
- KVRAF
- 2960 posts since 9 Dec, 2011 from falling
Maybe something like Kivy? "Kivy runs on Linux, Windows, OS X, Android and iOS. You can run the same code on all supported platforms." http://kivy.orgLawrenceF wrote: Re: Python ... I couldn't even imagine doing even a relatively simple UI like that in Python.
Bitwig Certified Trainer
-
- KVRist
- 66 posts since 3 Aug, 2014
This is excellent.
Studio One Pro 3.3 and PT 12.6 on Win 8.1 Pro, i7-3930k, Sabertooth x79, 16GB G.Skill 2133, Lynx Hilo, Eleven Rack, Chandler TG2, Liquid Channel, Mojave MA-200, Focal CMS65s. Oh, and a "few" guitars...
-
- KVRian
- 1353 posts since 31 Mar, 2014
Very cool! And so powerful! Even for simple tasks like creating 50 audio tracks at once 
Totally agree. Would be very powerful. And an integrated solution also would be more (performance) save and versitale as it would give more detailed access. (You could name the 50 tracks automatically and on everyone you could create a random FX device.)ThomasHelzle wrote:But I can see a less-controller-centric API in the future.
That could also bridge the gap between keeping the direct and easy to use concept BWS has now and still allow power users to customize to their hearts content.
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 6159 posts since 4 Dec, 2004
Hey guys, I dropped this project due to lack of interest. Having said that, I do have something already fully working that only needs a compatible file format to load to work with any host.
If someone wants to post the Bitwig (Windows) command sets in the xml format, it'll be childs play.
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<Commands name="Bitwig Windows Key Commands">
<Command category="[category]" name="[action name]">
<Key name="[key]" /> <-- Caps if qwerty, like D, not d.
</Command>\
</Commands>
That's really all I need to swing my macro editor code over to any other Windows product. Actually, if you can format them for me like below, delimited text, I already have code setup to write the xml file...
Category|Action|Binding (binding cased correctly like Ctrl+Shift+Alt+D)
In a simple text file, for all the commands, with Windows naming followed correctly like Page Up,Subtract (keypad minus) etc, etc.
If someone wants to post the Bitwig (Windows) command sets in the xml format, it'll be childs play.
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<Commands name="Bitwig Windows Key Commands">
<Command category="[category]" name="[action name]">
<Key name="[key]" /> <-- Caps if qwerty, like D, not d.
</Command>\
</Commands>
That's really all I need to swing my macro editor code over to any other Windows product. Actually, if you can format them for me like below, delimited text, I already have code setup to write the xml file...
Category|Action|Binding (binding cased correctly like Ctrl+Shift+Alt+D)
In a simple text file, for all the commands, with Windows naming followed correctly like Page Up,Subtract (keypad minus) etc, etc.
-
- KVRAF
- 4889 posts since 13 May, 2004
Most scripts are currently used to attach controllers but nothing is stopping you from using it for anything else. I have some ideas in that field.ThomasHelzle wrote: But I can see a less-controller-centric API in the future.
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 6159 posts since 4 Dec, 2004
I should probably explain my personal motivations for doing these kind of things...
1. First and foremost, because I am a Windows user and an amature coder, I can easily create some stuff I want for my Win DAW's instead of being frustrated by it. That's my initial main motivation, self serving. I've always done that because it's always the case that my user hack is better than nothing at all.
2. Secondly, as they may apply to other products I don't own, it's my way of gently throwing an elbow to developers to suggest, in a demonstrative way, how easy and potentially useful some of this stuff is. That is to say... "If I, with no source code, can make something that works so well, how easy (and how much better) would that be if you guys did it?" Because I never understand why so many companies don't do it.
To point #2 above, it baffles me to no end. In my view, if you take a smallish group of developers like Bitwig or PSL or similar I fully understand that their main focus involves really complex things, honestly, quite complex advanced coding things, I get that. What I don't understand is why all of these companies don't have a developer dedicated to the other stuff. It makes no sense at all to me.
Grab a guy, any decent C++ guy who needs a job, and bring him in just for that. Deal with all of the housekeeping stuff in his forks, track naming, macros, whatever, all the little handy stuff that never gets done. Not the really complex core stuff, the more simple offline stuff that almost no daw regularly does. That's your job, offline functions, nothing else. When you get something working we'll merge it into our main forks for testing.
Can't speak for anyone else but I often find it ridiculous and laughingly ironic that among all of the complex coding in some of these products you often can't even do amazingly simple things like batch rename a group of tracks.
1. First and foremost, because I am a Windows user and an amature coder, I can easily create some stuff I want for my Win DAW's instead of being frustrated by it. That's my initial main motivation, self serving. I've always done that because it's always the case that my user hack is better than nothing at all.
2. Secondly, as they may apply to other products I don't own, it's my way of gently throwing an elbow to developers to suggest, in a demonstrative way, how easy and potentially useful some of this stuff is. That is to say... "If I, with no source code, can make something that works so well, how easy (and how much better) would that be if you guys did it?" Because I never understand why so many companies don't do it.
To point #2 above, it baffles me to no end. In my view, if you take a smallish group of developers like Bitwig or PSL or similar I fully understand that their main focus involves really complex things, honestly, quite complex advanced coding things, I get that. What I don't understand is why all of these companies don't have a developer dedicated to the other stuff. It makes no sense at all to me.
Grab a guy, any decent C++ guy who needs a job, and bring him in just for that. Deal with all of the housekeeping stuff in his forks, track naming, macros, whatever, all the little handy stuff that never gets done. Not the really complex core stuff, the more simple offline stuff that almost no daw regularly does. That's your job, offline functions, nothing else. When you get something working we'll merge it into our main forks for testing.
Can't speak for anyone else but I often find it ridiculous and laughingly ironic that among all of the complex coding in some of these products you often can't even do amazingly simple things like batch rename a group of tracks.
-
- KVRist
- 95 posts since 31 Dec, 2014
wow, this is great.
I like old posts like this one, before i bought Bitwig.
Lawrence do you have version for 1.2? Where can I find this download?
Thank you again, it looks very useful on that short video!
I like old posts like this one, before i bought Bitwig.
Lawrence do you have version for 1.2? Where can I find this download?
Thank you again, it looks very useful on that short video!
Win7 64bit, i5 4690K, 16GB RAM, NI Audio 6, Presonus Eris E8, Yamaha HS50M, Presonus BlueTube, Shure SM7B, Studio One, Maschine MKII, Launchpad, Alesis VI61, NI F1, Traktor S4