feature request: logical schematic design

[mindvox626]

Opening up preset modules can be frustrating to decipher and makes it difficult to learn how signal chains are routed. Also, as modules become more and more complicated, it begins to be unmanageable and limits how complex modules can reasonably get as it becomes increasing harder to debug and modify. In this example it only takes seconds looking at the signal chain to decipher what is happening, in stark contrast to the original spaghetti code approach. Implementing this approach in a future release of MUX would be a quantum leap in modular design and we would soon see a new level of complexity in synths, effects, and racks being made by even those just starting off. Nobody else is doing this. Pretty please, make it happen?

[sdv]

+1 -- such a Visio-esque schematic could be very helpful.

Also, on a related-MUX note, I'm wondering if there's a way for the various modules groups (e.g. Audio Generators, Audio Processors, Event Generators, etc...) can have their own unique color coding? As is, once I color a rack which contains a MUX all the modules become the rack's color and I lose track of what kind of module type I'm dealing with.

[Michael L]

If you right-click in a MUX and choose Auto-Arrange in the context menu it:

• groups each type of module into the same row

• evenly distributes the modules in each row

That accomplishes much of what you want to do.
I think organising by location is faster than by colour.

[mutools]

If you right-click in a MUX and choose Auto-Arrange in the context menu it:

• groups each type of module into the same row

• evenly distributes the modules in each row

That accomplishes much of what you want to do.
I think organising by location is faster than by colour.

I agree.

As is, once I color a rack which contains a MUX all the modules become the rack's color and I lose track of what kind of module type I'm dealing with.

Maybe this should change so that, in the modular area, only the rack module itself uses the rack's color, but any deeper modules stay on standard color.

[sdv]

As is, once I color a rack which contains a MUX all the modules become the rack's color and I lose track of what kind of module type I'm dealing with.

Maybe this should change so that, in the modular area, only the rack module itself uses the rack's color, but any deeper modules stay on standard color.

Sounds like a good idea (for me at least).

[sl23]

@op: coming from an electronics background, I find the second pic enhances the ability to see what goes where.

Auto arrange tho, currently isn't to my liking. I always prefer things to work manually. It's very rare to find anything automatic that works how I want, least that's my experience. Even my car's heating auto setting doesn't work how I want lol

[pseudonym_303]

I like organized things but auto arranging usually make things worse.

On the example you provided

2021-05-05 10_28_48-Window.png

Problematic area is the intersection of the signals. Are they forking, joining or are those separate signals?

[mindvox626]

@pseudonym_303: The dots mean that the line is being tapped. No dots just means that the signals are crossing and not interacting.
The way this reads is as follows: LP 1 is getting modulation information from F-Env Amount. LP 2 is getting both of the modulation signals from F-Env Amount and LP2 FreqOf, and EQ is getting the same modulation information as LP2.

Edit: You're right I found an issue. I have to think about a work around.

[sl23]

The dots at intersecting connections could be brighter shades to increase visibility

[Michael L]

I often re-arrange the Auto-arrange; I like the clarity of direct connections; the electrical circuit schematic convention may take too much brainpower to sort out.

[mindvox626]

Looks like sl23 beat me to the punch! I changed things a little bit because there were some forking contradictions brought to my attention by pseudonym_303. This addresses those issues but it was a little harder to tell what was modulating what. The solution turns to be an option to brighten a dot to indicate that this is an important contact point that you want to be able to spot easily.

Edit: Looks like the logical inconsistency still exists. The connections going into LP 2 and EQ are fine. LP 1 just needs to be routed the same way as LP2 and EQ. I am not going to redo it. It is just for illustration purposes.

[sdv]

If you right-click in a MUX and choose Auto-Arrange in the context menu it:

• groups each type of module into the same row

• evenly distributes the modules in each row

I'm not sure what Auto-Arrange is supposed to accomplish but here's a before & after which is quite baffling;
Before:

img1_myOrder.JPG

After:

img1_autoArrange.JPG

[mutools]

Auto Arrange will make sure the modules are spread so the signal flows top down.
It's just a basic auto algo, and in many cases manual organisation will be better.
Nevertheless Auto Arrange often is a handy quick tool.

[Loonie]

Some graphical interfaces of this kind allow you to add nodes to a connecting line for more routing organization and help with readability. Perhaps such a thing would benefit MuLab.

nodes.jpg

[sl23]

That alone would solve much of the spaghetti syndrome of Mux wiring.

When you have 2, 3, 4, or maybe more modules all going to the same input, it makes sense to have these intersecting nodes so the output goes to a node with a single connection from node to input.

In complex Mux presets this would make things so much easier to read.