PATTERN HOLD toggle button on the Pattern Set Screen

[Folkdisco]

Thought this was just added to a long to-do list, and now it's on the official update! Thank you again for all of the updates, which are regularly adding more useful features. Off to have a play!
Think this will all make more difference when I get my BLE keyboard linked up.
Sorry I have been a bit quiet. Wanting to update my android OS, but need to back everything up and keep putting it off! Also, 4 toddlers running around and we have all been ill for ages, especially me!

[planet-h]

Thought this was just added to a long to-do list, and now it's on the official update! Thank you again for all of the updates, which are regularly adding more useful features. Off to have a play!
Think this will all make more difference when I get my BLE keyboard linked up.

You're welcome
Fortunately it was a relative small change;), and it is definitely a very useful addition.

Sorry I have been a bit quiet. Wanting to update my android OS, but need to back everything up and keep putting it off! Also, 4 toddlers running around and we have all been ill for ages, especially me!

No problem at all;). With "ill" mean you had the flu? If so ... same here. Just got rid of it these days (almost).

[Folkdisco]

On the flu.... Ugh! Get well soon, Andreas! I keep feeling like I'm finally getting over it, and then I'm just as bad the next day. Really is a problem trying to sing. Feels like I have been ill since November, with the odd gap. Anyway...
I don't think this is strictly correct:
"[DONE in 5.7.1] PATTERN HOLD toggle button on the Pattern Set Screen"
Unless I am missing something, I think the LOCK PATTERNS feature is implemented, and seems to be working 100%.
However, the original request for the ability to retain sounds, settings, mutes, etc between patterns hasn't been implemented yet? LOCK SOUNDS, or whatever you want to call it. I was desperately trying to long click the lock button despite the lack of a little corner thingy!

[planet-h]

I don't think this is strictly correct:
"[DONE in 5.7.1] PATTERN HOLD toggle button on the Pattern Set Screen"
Unless I am missing something, I think the LOCK PATTERNS feature is implemented, and seems to be working 100%.
However, the original request for the ability to retain sounds, settings, mutes, etc between patterns hasn't been implemented yet? LOCK SOUNDS, or whatever you want to call it. I was desperately trying to long click the lock button despite the lack of a little corner thingy!

You're right...

2: Lock Everything with exception of the sequences. I don't know a suitable name yet.
This would just lock all parameters (sounds, mixer, master, just everything except the sequences).
In this situation you'd be able to switch patterns in the set as usual, but always keeping the sounds and all other settings.

... was not part of the update.

I've marked the thread with [DONE...] as the Pattern Hold / Lock was your initial request.
I did a couple of tests with the mode 2. Unfortunately it turned out to be much more complicated than the general pattern lock (it's anyway a completely different thing).
However, it's not ditched yet.
One thing is to mention. I was counting the mute and solo switches to the sequence.
Therefore "lock sounds" was never thought to lock mute or solo switches, everything else, yes, but not the sequences and mute/solo switches.
As said, there's still a good chance that it'll come with some later update, but it has been moved down in priority, as such a sound lock would have a lot of side effects, which are unfortunately hard to control.

[Folkdisco]

I've marked the thread with [DONE...] as the Pattern Hold / Lock was your initial request.

Oh dear.
I really can't have explained myself well enough at all!
I think if you read the original request, it has definitely not been done in 5.7.1.
Riche's LOCK feature effectively creates an undo mode, which should cover a few other peoples' requests for an undo button, but sadly, it doesn't do anything whatsoever for my request!
I did think that this feature might be of some interest to Riche, but in retrospect, I think this has just created a bit of confusion.
Like you say, the two features are "completely different things".
The original request was to be able to take the current sound design (Sampler, Beast, Mixer, Mutes, everything) forward through progressive different patterns without the sound design being reset at each pattern end/start.

On mutes...
Being able to mute a track, and take this mute forward into successive patterns was a big part of how I would see this feature being used.
For example, muting individual drum tracks, a single Beast track, or taking out the entire rhythm section.
It is quick, easy and tempting to use mutes as a way of quickly creating sonic differences.
If mutes are ignored and reset at the next pattern end/start, then this feature would certainly be *A LOT* less powerful.

My hold/lock feature was intended to allow users to work in a completely different alternative working environment, with only minor changes to one screen of the GSS interface, and without breaking any current logic or interface.
Obviously, I am aware that small changes in interface logic can require a hell of a lot of programming under the surface!

Without any detailed knowledge of how your brilliant program works, my gut feeling is that having some mixer elements active in one pattern, and other mixer elements like mutes and solos active in another pattern, could easily bring a lot of complications, logically for users, and *perhaps* in programming terms.

As always, complete respect for your lovely program, and for all the work and effort you have put into making it what it is today.

[planet-h]

I think if you read the original request, it has definitely not been done in 5.7.1.

Awww. yeah, you're right, sorry for that. I've removed the flag again.
I somehow lost track of it.

Riche's LOCK feature effectively creates an undo mode, which should cover a few other peoples' requests for an undo button, but sadly, it doesn't do anything whatsoever for my request!
I did think that this feature might be of some interest to Riche, but in retrospect, I think this has just created a bit of confusion.
Like you say, the two features are "completely different things".

After reading your request again, it's clear what you're looking for.
I wouldn't say mentioning riche's idea created the confusion.
At the end, we've discussed about both, but focused on the easier way.

The original request was to be able to take the current sound design (Sampler, Beast, Mixer, Mutes, everything) forward through progressive different patterns without the sound design being reset at each pattern end/start.

On mutes...
Being able to mute a track, and take this mute forward into successive patterns was a big part of how I would see this feature being used.
For example, muting individual drum tracks, a single Beast track, or taking out the entire rhythm section.
It is quick, easy and tempting to use mutes as a way of quickly creating sonic differences.
If mutes are ignored and reset at the next pattern end/start, then this feature would certainly be *A LOT* less powerful.

My hold/lock feature was intended to allow users to work in a completely different alternative working environment, with only minor changes to one screen of the GSS interface, and without breaking any current logic or interface.

Simply said, what you're looking for is a hack to make GSS behave like a normal, timeline based multi track sequencer (like Caustic, AEM, FLM, etc.).

Obviously, I am aware that small changes in interface logic can require a hell of a lot of programming under the surface!

Without any detailed knowledge of how your brilliant program works, my gut feeling is that having some mixer elements active in one pattern, and other mixer elements like mutes and solos active in another pattern, could easily bring a lot of complications, logically for users, and *perhaps* in programming terms.

As always, complete respect for your lovely program, and for all the work and effort you have put into making it what it is today.

After going through the discussion again, I remember the potential problems with it.
Most critical are the automations, as these are stored in the patterns.
It's actually that much of a problem that it probably kills the feature.
In the GSS internals, a parameter is a parameter, nothing more, GSS has no idea what a particular parameter is for, therefore it cannot decide to allow automations for volume while not allowing it for the fx sliders. And as you remember, if a regular pattern comes with automations in the FX chain or insert FX for example, and the lock/hold pattern has completely different FX assigned, then the automations would be totally out of place.

I fully see the benefit of your suggestion, don't get me wrong. I just also see that it's the opposite of what GSS actually does.

The other thing is, I just want you to know that I'm working on another idea since a while, a multi track sequencer. It's not in the coding process, but since GSS and everything around it is now out of the data collection and privacy circus (no more analytics, no more push notifications, etc.), there's a lot of extra time, which might result in finally making it real.

[Folkdisco]

After going through the discussion again, I remember the potential problems with it.
Most critical are the automations, as these are stored in the patterns.
It's actually that much of a problem that it probably kills the feature.
In the GSS internals, a parameter is a parameter, nothing more, GSS has no idea what a particular parameter is for, therefore it cannot decide to allow automations for volume while not allowing it for the fx sliders. And as you remember, if a regular pattern comes with automations in the FX chain or insert FX for example, and the lock/hold pattern has completely different FX assigned, then the automations would be totally out of place.

If a user has automation on insert FX2-parameter 3 in pattern A4, then playback of A4 should automate parameter 3.
So far, so good!
Yes, maybe this was for hardness on an overdrive, and now it's delay on a chorus, but so what?!
In the same way, maybe I automated the depth of LFO1 on the Beast, which was for SHAPE1 and now it's FLT2 CUTOFF.
If the user wants to do this, who are you to tell them not to do it?
What GSS does need to do is trap unusable automation, so if data is higher than the maximum allowed value for a parameter, then is set as the maximum allowed value. No more, no less.
Maybe the resulting sound could be strange, and maybe it could be unexpectedly brilliant, but it is what the user has asked for, so he/she should damn well have it!
Again, I do not see this as a problem.
All I see is lovely flexibility.
Even if everything goes enjoyably or disturbingly haywire, you are never more than a quick click away from returning to the pattern as it was originally programmed.
Ace!
What I don't understand is why this "probably kills the feature?"

Simply said, what you're looking for is a hack to make GSS behave like a normal, timeline based multi track sequencer (like Caustic, AEM, FLM, etc.).
The other thing is, I just want you to know that I'm working on another idea since a while, a multi track sequencer. It's not in the coding process, but since GSS and everything around it is now out of the data collection and privacy circus (no more analytics, no more push notifications, etc.), there's a lot of extra time, which might result in finally making it real.

As you say, there are a few linear sequencers out there.
What I love about GSS is the loop based pattern, interactive nature of it.
I think there are other approaches to interactive looped playback, like Ableton and bitwig, which are in some ways more flexible, and in some ways a lot more complicated.
GSS is different and brilliant in its own way.
Indeed, GSS can do quite a few things which are beyond even desktop DAWs like Ableton, bitwig and Cubase, never mind Caustic and FLM.
To be completely precise, what I am looking for is a feature which can temporarily make the mixer and sound modules behave more like the mixer and sound modules in Cubase or Caustic, where you pass note data to a sound module which can 'evolve' through the song, rather than resetting again at every new pattern.
And yes, I would like this in the fantastic interactive, looped based sound and control environment that is GSS.
Also, while I am having my cake and eating it, I would really like to be able to switch back to those nice pre-set sound design patterns at any time!

…the opposite of what GSS actually does.

I think the power of this would be to allow users to work in a different way, and to switch in and out between the two at the start of the next pattern.
Again, these are only my ideas and opinions, and other ideas, opinions and requests are available!
All of the above, strictly IMHO!
And again, as always, keep up the good work dude!

[planet-h]

If a user has automation on insert FX2-parameter 3 in pattern A4, then playback of A4 should automate parameter 3.
So far, so good!
Yes, maybe this was for hardness on an overdrive, and now it's delay on a chorus, but so what?!
In the same way, maybe I automated the depth of LFO1 on the Beast, which was for SHAPE1 and now it's FLT2 CUTOFF.
If the user wants to do this, who are you to tell them not to do it?
What GSS does need to do is trap unusable automation, so if data is higher than the maximum allowed value for a parameter, then is set as the maximum allowed value. No more, no less.
Maybe the resulting sound could be strange, and maybe it could be unexpectedly brilliant, but it is what the user has asked for, so he/she should damn well have it!
Again, I do not see this as a problem.
All I see is lovely flexibility.
Even if everything goes enjoyably or disturbingly haywire, you are never more than a quick click away from returning to the pattern as it was originally programmed.
Ace!
What I don't understand is why this "probably kills the feature?"

Pretty simple... Automations won't work in such a setup.
In the FX setup it's quite obvious. It makes absolutely no sense to automate e.g. param1 in FX1 if the originally automated FX was a filter, and the held pattern (the locked one) has a delay in this FX slot. For regular patterns, it's a bit less obvious, but the problem is the same. Let's say there is an Automation of the T01 Mixer Volume, a fade in from 0 to 100 over the pattern length. Now you have locked all sounds and stuff and you play the song. In the locked sounds, in the held pattern, the T01 Mixer Volume is at 75, now when the automated pattern starts to play, then the T01 volume jumps from 75 to 0 then fades in to 100, and then jumps back to 75. And even if the volume remained at 100 after the fade in, no one would like that behavior and many users won't understand it. In other words, it would be only a half complete solution, you could also call it a hack with many uncontrollable side effects, not something for the masses. And therefore this fact kills the feature.

To be completely precise, what I am looking for is a hack to temporarily make the mixer and sound modules behave more like the mixer and sound modules in Cubase or Caustic, where you pass note data to a sound module which can 'evolve' through the song, rather than resetting again at every new pattern.
And yes, I would like this in the fantastic interactive, looped based sound and control environment that is GSS.
Also, while I am having my cake and eating it, I would really like to be able to switch back to those nice pre-set sound design patterns at any time!

Absolutely understand. And exactly this is the problem, it is a hack. And a hack will never make it to a production release.
What you're looking for would be well covered in a new app with the GSS audio engine (drum machine, synth, fx, and everything else), but with a pattern set + patterns per instrument instance:
one synth track = one pattern set = 64 pure synth patterns
one sampler track = one pattern set = 64 pure sampler patterns
Also possible would be:
one drum machine instance with 12 tracks = one pattern set = 64 drum machine patterns
(while multiple instances of the drum machine might be used).
But as said, this would be in another app, not in G-Stomper Studio.
As a matter of course, this other app would load patterns from G-Stomper Studio.

I think the power of this would be to allow users to work in a different way, and to switch in and out between the two at the start of the next pattern.

Absolutely, it makes sense and I see the benefit. But this would also be fine in another app.
G-Stomper Studio is already very very full of features. It will surely get regular updates in the future, but I cannot turn the core behavior upside down, or add features that simply add much more complexity (which this clearly would).

Again, these are only my ideas and opinions, and other ideas, opinions and requests are available!
All of the above, strictly IMHO!
And again, as always, keep up the good work dude!

Thank you, Folkdisco.
I Really appreciate your opinions;). As always, our discussions are very inspiring.

[Folkdisco]

Ah, I wrote a reply to your previous post, and now you have written more, and my original reply makes no sense whatsoever!
But just to say, I don't think it isn't just me, a lot of people really appreciate the genuinely useful updates to GSS and its sister apps.

[Folkdisco]

Let's say I have a pattern set with:
Pattern A1: T01 Volume=75.
A2 T01 volume set to 0 and an automated fade in to 100.
A3=Volume 75.
A4=Volume 50.
Let's play A1, A2, A3, A4.

Under current GSS:
Volume at 75, then jumps to 0, fades up to 100, then jumps to 75, then jumps to 50.
When I try to change the volume of T01, it changes, then jumps back to the preset value at each and every new pattern.

Under GSS+lock sounds option on:
Volume at 75, then jumps to 0, fades up to 100, then remains at 100 until the end of the song, unless I subsequently change it, or switch off hold/lock.
When I try to change the volume of T01, it changes, and remains at that volume.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but doesn't a held/locked sounds option will give fewer sudden jumps, with or without automation?

I don't think this is a problem with locked sounds in GSS.
I think it's a problem with GSS with a locked sounds option, and it's a problem with GSS as it operates currently, and it's a problem with automation in all your apps, and it's a problem with automation in everyone else's apps and programs! Indeed, it always has been a right PITA since I first got into midi using Cubase on Ataris in the early 90s from analogue tape machines, and in every program since!
It wasn't a problem with analogue tape machines, you just needed more than two hands to change everything at once, and everything was covered in tape hiss and muffle.

If I program a fade, yes unless I think about context within a song, it could well jump in volume at the start, and it might even jump in volume at the end unless there's a hold/lock sounds option.
If the great mass of users don't understand or expect this behaviour, then they are going to have to get used to it, because this is how GSS operates currently, and it is how every other app and program operates!

My general approach is to avoid all automation until I'm making a final mix, except where it's completely necessary.
I have only used automation a couple of times in GSS, partly because it's pointless when everything gets reset again at the end of the pattern, and partly because you don't need to use automation when you can do sound design in the patterns.
I could imagine using A LOT more automations under a lock sounds option, alas!

With fx automations, yes it is possible to get strange results, but in very specific circumstances.
If I select lock sounds AND change fx to a completely different type between patterns AND automate certain fx parameters on the current pattern, then it may or may not cause issues.
Even here, I really don't think it's going to make such a radical difference, unless you now have a distortion type effects, when the sound could easily be over loud or silent.
But clearly, if pattern A13 has fx parameter automation intended for a different fx, then as a user, I can run pattern A13, or not run it, and I probably know my own song.

You could possibly filter out fx automations when fx is different, or filter out all fx automations, or like you say, abandon all locking of sounds between patterns.
But in Britain, we have a phrase about throwing out the baby with the bath water! *

What about midi controllers?
Even without any automation at all, the physical midi controllers currently get out of sync with their physical values each and every new pattern.
This means that currently, if you touch, or possibly even breathe on or look at midi controller knobs in a funny way, they jump from their current values in GSS (etc!) to their physical values.
Ableton has a useful option/hack/feature to move data values towards a physical knob or slider's value, to prevent jarring jumps in volume, fx, etc.

I see the various requests asking you for a more 'normal' linear or loop based DAW rather than an uber groovebox simulator, both here and in app reviews on Google Play. It always strikes me that you are at least a good 2/3 of the way there. Not just in functions written, but in knowledge gained over the years, writing GSS, and adding features. All the basic audio functions are done, it just needs the interface and control systems, and you have already been through this process once, and know the issues. I don't in any way want to underestimate that, but if you want to go that way, a lot of it is done. It certainly seems like would be a very nice app from your brief description, and we all know it would sound fantastic.

It seems to me that you get fewer unexpected jumps in volume, etc, with a lock sounds option on, than is currently the case.

It's definitely your baby to play with, and you can take it where you like.
I keep banging my various drums over here about possible directions to walk your baby, but I don't think I'm persuading you!

* Last night, one boy had gone to sleep in bed, two boys were currently in the bath, and one boy had temporarily gotten out of the bath and was shivering wet on the toilet with a towel around his shoulders. I had wiped his bum once, but apparently it was unfinished business. Suddenly all these little logs and a vague lumpy brown colour started appearing in the bath. It isn't good to throw away your babies with the bath water, but sometimes you feel a bit uneasy sticking your hand in to pull the plug out. Hope this helps!