Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Enhancement: A design-idea on ghost-notes #696

Closed
musikBear opened this issue May 8, 2014 · 3 comments
Closed

Enhancement: A design-idea on ghost-notes #696

musikBear opened this issue May 8, 2014 · 3 comments

Comments

@musikBear
Copy link

I have an idea for a 'ghost-note design.
User has made a track of normal notes.
User now need to make a copy of this track
User can drag new preset into the copy-track (and rename if wanted)
In the copy-track user select new context-menu-item:
"Ghost all this tracks notes (not reversable)"
LMMS engine travers the tracks note event and and set property vol== -1
(does lmms heuristics allow negative vol??*)
Negative volume denotes a ghosted note
Heuristic for ghosted notes are:

  • should not logically count as note-events (cpu-saving
  • should be drawn in suited alpha-val, -but- in full length (in contrast to velocity changed notes

Current copy-track would now have -all- note-events visible, but no longer playable!
New notes added to the copy-track, would however act exactly as default notes, and be playable as normal notes.
Iow. - Notes that existed -before- the copy-event are in fact now ghosts-notes.
Because ghost-notes has a negative volume (-1), it would be possible to remove all ghost-notes, with a 'simple'(?) transverse of the data-structure, if user decides to redo something.
(Perhaps an even sexier option exists in the datastructure or how the notes data are kept internaly??
What are your thoughts?

((for copyright reason an other name like 'phantom-notes' should perhaps be used))

@Sti2nd
Copy link
Contributor

Sti2nd commented May 8, 2014

Is it really copyrighted?

@Spekular
Copy link
Member

@tresf shouldn't this be consolidated into #520?

@tresf
Copy link
Member

tresf commented Jan 1, 2015

Yeah, it should. Thanks.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants