<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0">
	<channel>
		<title><![CDATA[ChipMusic.org - NTRQ: quick poll]]></title>
		<link>https://chipmusic.org/forums/topic/374/ntrq-quick-poll/</link>
		<description><![CDATA[The most recent posts in NTRQ: quick poll.]]></description>
		<lastBuildDate>Wed, 17 Feb 2010 10:31:44 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>PunBB</generator>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Re: NTRQ: quick poll]]></title>
			<link>https://chipmusic.org/forums/post/11284/#p11284</link>
			<description><![CDATA[<b><i>neilbaldwin says:</i></b><p>It&#039;s an interesting idea, certainly.</p><p>I&#039;ll add it to the list of possible future features.</p><p>Sometime in 2011 OK for you?</p><p><img src="https://chipmusic.org/forums/img/smilies/smile.png" width="15" height="15" alt="smile" /></p>]]></description>
			<pubDate>Wed, 17 Feb 2010 10:31:44 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>https://chipmusic.org/forums/post/11284/#p11284</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Re: NTRQ: quick poll]]></title>
			<link>https://chipmusic.org/forums/post/11281/#p11281</link>
			<description><![CDATA[<b><i>goto80 says:</i></b><p>Did you consider any generative features in the tracker? I know it&#039;s tricky to implement it in an effective and useful way (I&#039;ve had hours of discussions about it concerning Defmon), but I do think it&#039;s too rare of a feature in trackers. Especially if you distribute your songs in a non-recorded way. If there is any space left (which there doesn&#039;t seem to be? - sorry, didn&#039;t read through carefully enough) you could e.g. have a table of 8 steps where you can set instrument, note, ADSR, pulse width, etc. If you want to randomize between C and G but also throw an A in there at times, you&#039;d write C,C,C,C,G,G,G,A in say table 01 and call it from the pattern. Hm, makes any sense? Hope it does, because then I could become a super lazy NES-composer like I always wanted! :----)</p>]]></description>
			<pubDate>Wed, 17 Feb 2010 10:04:25 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>https://chipmusic.org/forums/post/11281/#p11281</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Re: NTRQ: quick poll]]></title>
			<link>https://chipmusic.org/forums/post/11137/#p11137</link>
			<description><![CDATA[<b><i>herr_prof says:</i></b><p>I think in the long run, pattern speed is more useful. Full track volume fades are cheesy <img src="https://chipmusic.org/forums/img/smilies/big_smile.png" width="15" height="15" alt="big_smile" />.</p>]]></description>
			<pubDate>Tue, 16 Feb 2010 15:18:53 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>https://chipmusic.org/forums/post/11137/#p11137</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Re: NTRQ: quick poll]]></title>
			<link>https://chipmusic.org/forums/post/11131/#p11131</link>
			<description><![CDATA[<b><i>MicroD says:</i></b><p>I vote for the &quot;Pattern Master Volume Fade Command&quot;.</p>]]></description>
			<pubDate>Tue, 16 Feb 2010 14:46:27 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>https://chipmusic.org/forums/post/11131/#p11131</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Re: NTRQ: quick poll]]></title>
			<link>https://chipmusic.org/forums/post/5121/#p5121</link>
			<description><![CDATA[<b><i>bucky says:</i></b><div class="quotebox"><cite>neilbaldwin wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>Heh.....I just figured out a really cheap way to do it.</p><p>Gave it a quick rough test and it seems pretty good.</p><p>So, anyway, back to the poll: &quot;Pattern Master Volume Fade Command&quot; or &quot;Pattern Speed Table Command&quot;? Which is better?</p><p><img src="https://chipmusic.org/forums/img/smilies/smile.png" width="15" height="15" alt="smile" /></p></blockquote></div><p>Awesome, thanks for adding the note delay! A pretty crucial effect imo. <img src="https://chipmusic.org/forums/img/smilies/smile.png" width="15" height="15" alt="smile" /></p><p>I haven&#039;t weighed in an opinion yet on the original question, mostly because I can&#039;t make up my mind weighing out the pros and cons. I think I&#039;ll be cool with whichever you pick here, really.</p>]]></description>
			<pubDate>Mon, 18 Jan 2010 21:44:25 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>https://chipmusic.org/forums/post/5121/#p5121</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Re: NTRQ: quick poll]]></title>
			<link>https://chipmusic.org/forums/post/5021/#p5021</link>
			<description><![CDATA[<b><i>ant1 says:</i></b><p>Ah, I see! <img src="https://chipmusic.org/forums/img/smilies/smile.png" width="15" height="15" alt="smile" /></p>]]></description>
			<pubDate>Mon, 18 Jan 2010 15:57:00 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>https://chipmusic.org/forums/post/5021/#p5021</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Re: NTRQ: quick poll]]></title>
			<link>https://chipmusic.org/forums/post/5020/#p5020</link>
			<description><![CDATA[<b><i>neilbaldwin says:</i></b><div class="quotebox"><cite>egr wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>If the &quot;Fade Pattern Volume&quot; command would not be interrupted by other commands further down the pattern I say add it.&nbsp; As in, as long as I could &quot;Fade Pattern Volume&quot; and while that was going on still set vibrato (for instance).&nbsp; If that&#039;s not the case, I&#039;d prefer the &quot;Speed&quot; option.&nbsp; I don&#039;t know what the instrument editor is like, but it&#039;s always possible to get &quot;more effects&quot; into a pattern by swapping variations of the instrument.</p></blockquote></div><p>Yes, the fading would be triggered and operate independent of other effects. Well, this is how it works in the Song Arranger anyway <img src="https://chipmusic.org/forums/img/smilies/smile.png" width="15" height="15" alt="smile" /></p><div class="quotebox"><cite>arlen wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>My vote is for the Fade Pattern Volume thing.</p><p>I like fade-in notes.</p></blockquote></div><p>There are other ways to achieve fade-in notes too;</p><p>- the &quot;set volume for single note&quot; command affects the note on the step you use it but can also be used to modify the volume of an already playing note. So you could;</p><p>00: C4 B0&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; ;play C4 with volume 0<br />01: ---&nbsp; B1&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; ;modify the volume of C4<br />02: ---&nbsp; B3&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; ;louder<br />03: ---&nbsp; B5&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; ;louder</p><p>etc</p><p>or just use an ADSR with a long attack time, tie some notes together so you don&#039;t get envelope restart, then switch to a different instrument when you don&#039;t need the fade in.</p>]]></description>
			<pubDate>Mon, 18 Jan 2010 15:56:29 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>https://chipmusic.org/forums/post/5020/#p5020</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Re: NTRQ: quick poll]]></title>
			<link>https://chipmusic.org/forums/post/5019/#p5019</link>
			<description><![CDATA[<b><i>neilbaldwin says:</i></b><div class="quotebox"><cite>ant1 wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>Maybe you can make an effects table which runs behind the note table, and then pressing a button or button-combo would flip it over to show just effects or just notes?</p><p>Not as intuitive as standard tracker layout but would save all the screen space and screen refresh issues.</p></blockquote></div><p>Not easy to explain, even though I just tried to in a PM to akira.</p><p>It&#039;s not just the screen real-estate that is the issue. Currently the whole 8kb of the battery RAM is used, every single byte. So even if I could display another effect column, there&#039;s no space in the data file for that data.</p><p>Planned future features will include some kind of compression of the data which may/may not happen and may/may not enable stuff like extra command columns but not right now.</p><p><img src="https://chipmusic.org/forums/img/smilies/smile.png" width="15" height="15" alt="smile" /></p>]]></description>
			<pubDate>Mon, 18 Jan 2010 15:50:25 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>https://chipmusic.org/forums/post/5019/#p5019</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Re: NTRQ: quick poll]]></title>
			<link>https://chipmusic.org/forums/post/5006/#p5006</link>
			<description><![CDATA[<b><i>arlen says:</i></b><p>My vote is for the Fade Pattern Volume thing.</p><p>I like fade-in notes.</p>]]></description>
			<pubDate>Mon, 18 Jan 2010 14:43:36 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>https://chipmusic.org/forums/post/5006/#p5006</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Re: NTRQ: quick poll]]></title>
			<link>https://chipmusic.org/forums/post/5002/#p5002</link>
			<description><![CDATA[<b><i>egr says:</i></b><div class="quotebox"><cite>neilbaldwin wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>Currently you can only do a volume fade from the Song Editor but I thought it might be cool if you could do it from the Patterns too.</p><p>Problem is I&#039;ve pretty much run out of bits to implement pattern commands.</p><p>Here&#039;s what you can do in Patterns:</p><p>- Select instrument<br />- Pitch slide<br />- Vibrato<br />- Pitch Table index (for arpeggios etc.)<br />- override volume for single note<br />- set Pattern volume<br />- override Duty Table index<br />- override Speed Table index</p><p>Of all those, you can also set the Speed Table index in the Song so personally I&#039;d favour scrapping that function in the Patterns to make room for a &quot;Fade Pattern Volume&quot; command.</p><p>Any opinions?</p><p>I suppose for completeness, here&#039;s what you can do in the Song Master Track;</p><p>- jump to song step<br />- repeat current song step (1 to 32 times)<br />- set master (Song) volume<br />- set master volume fade<br />- set Speed Table index</p><p>Neil</p></blockquote></div><p>If the &quot;Fade Pattern Volume&quot; command would not be interrupted by other commands further down the pattern I say add it.&nbsp; As in, as long as I could &quot;Fade Pattern Volume&quot; and while that was going on still set vibrato (for instance).&nbsp; If that&#039;s not the case, I&#039;d prefer the &quot;Speed&quot; option.&nbsp; I don&#039;t know what the instrument editor is like, but it&#039;s always possible to get &quot;more effects&quot; into a pattern by swapping variations of the instrument.</p>]]></description>
			<pubDate>Mon, 18 Jan 2010 14:26:26 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>https://chipmusic.org/forums/post/5002/#p5002</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Re: NTRQ: quick poll]]></title>
			<link>https://chipmusic.org/forums/post/5001/#p5001</link>
			<description><![CDATA[<b><i>ant1 says:</i></b><p>Maybe you can make an effects table which runs behind the note table, and then pressing a button or button-combo would flip it over to show just effects or just notes?</p><p>Not as intuitive as standard tracker layout but would save all the screen space and screen refresh issues.</p>]]></description>
			<pubDate>Mon, 18 Jan 2010 14:25:35 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>https://chipmusic.org/forums/post/5001/#p5001</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Re: NTRQ: quick poll]]></title>
			<link>https://chipmusic.org/forums/post/4998/#p4998</link>
			<description><![CDATA[<b><i>akira^8GB says:</i></b><p>OK bear in mind I am a total ignorant code-wise <img src="https://chipmusic.org/forums/img/smilies/big_smile.png" width="15" height="15" alt="big_smile" /><br />I sent you a PM!</p>]]></description>
			<pubDate>Mon, 18 Jan 2010 14:07:44 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>https://chipmusic.org/forums/post/4998/#p4998</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Re: NTRQ: quick poll]]></title>
			<link>https://chipmusic.org/forums/post/4993/#p4993</link>
			<description><![CDATA[<b><i>neilbaldwin says:</i></b><div class="quotebox"><cite>akira^8GB wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>I see, the. I cannot help with the memory but I could with the interface, let me know!</p></blockquote></div><p>I&#039;ll bear it in mind, thanks for the offer. <img src="https://chipmusic.org/forums/img/smilies/smile.png" width="15" height="15" alt="smile" /></p><p>The problem cannot be isolated though to just the interface though.</p><p>Putting in another Pattern column would require 10 more text columns (5 tracks x 2 digits per column) which absolutely will not fit on the NES screen. I had to redesign my original layout to move all the text in away from the edges of the screen as you cannot guarantee (on NTSC) that you&#039;ll be able to read the outermost rows and columns <img src="https://chipmusic.org/forums/img/smilies/sad.png" width="15" height="15" alt="sad" /></p><p>If anything I also need to be updating *less* information as the screen refresh is already slower than I&#039;d like. Adding more data will mean less can be update per frame which will slow down the screen refresh even more.</p><p>I have no room at all where the Song Arranger is - one column at most. I&#039;d need 4 to add an effect per Song Track.</p><p>Then there&#039;s the memory issue. If I start adding more columns to the patterns they will take 50% more space in the 8Kb of RAM I have (which is totally used up). If I add an effect column per Song Track, that will take up another 50% more space for the Song data.</p><p>In future releases I plan to compress the Pattern and Song data and decompress them on-the-fly but a) that&#039;s the future and b) it might not be possible.</p>]]></description>
			<pubDate>Mon, 18 Jan 2010 12:47:30 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>https://chipmusic.org/forums/post/4993/#p4993</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Re: NTRQ: quick poll]]></title>
			<link>https://chipmusic.org/forums/post/4986/#p4986</link>
			<description><![CDATA[<b><i>akira^8GB says:</i></b><p>I see, the. I cannot help with the memory but I could with the interface, let me know!</p>]]></description>
			<pubDate>Mon, 18 Jan 2010 12:13:05 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>https://chipmusic.org/forums/post/4986/#p4986</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Re: NTRQ: quick poll]]></title>
			<link>https://chipmusic.org/forums/post/4896/#p4896</link>
			<description><![CDATA[<b><i>neilbaldwin says:</i></b><div class="quotebox"><cite>akira^8GB wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>Is this a memory/procesor limitation or a graphic interface limitation?</p></blockquote></div><p>Memory and interface limitations.</p>]]></description>
			<pubDate>Mon, 18 Jan 2010 00:11:03 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>https://chipmusic.org/forums/post/4896/#p4896</guid>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
