Moving VT

[SkinTex]

During jams/playing around, I approach it as a corporate brainstorm session: no judgement, anything goes, we'll sort feasibility later. Though this creative process gives lots of freedom, it also clutters the track a lot.

Picking up from a jamming session to work it into a song, I often have one or two unused VT0x which I presume eat resources while not being used.

The simple question would be: Is there any way to transplant VT0x into VT0y including all patterns and arrangements? In studio it is impossible due to the way everything revolves around the patterns. But in producer where everything is independent? If it exists, I haven't found it yet. My apologies if I have overlooked it.

Here's a picture which hopefully shows what I mean. VT02 is empty and I'd like to move VT05 there so I can set one less synth in Setup.

A more complex approach would be a feature request: "Track cleanup". I've gotten to know it in old pc tracker software, it basically means G-stomper would remove all unused patterns, instruments, Fx, automation, etc and optionally re-sort the patterns into a chronological order. This slims down the file, makes it use less RAM and makes it easier to visually see the track.

If it all isn't possible, no worries. Just means it's a lot of copy pasting.

[planet-h]

Thanks for your message, SkinTex.

The simple question would be: Is there any way to transplant VT0x into VT0y including all patterns and arrangements?

This is on the task list, but not yet implemented.

VT02 is empty and I'd like to move VT05 there so I can set one less synth in Setup.

Interesting point. Having a "copy" or "swap" feature for complete tracks would be surely nice. I'll think about that.

A more complex approach would be a feature request: "Track cleanup". I've gotten to know it in old pc tracker software, it basically means G-stomper would remove all unused patterns, instruments, Fx, automation, etc and optionally re-sort the patterns into a chronological order. This slims down the file, makes it use less RAM and makes it easier to visually see the track.

Yes, that would be great. But unfortunately there is no specific state that can say for sure that a pattern is actually empty.
Maybe you have patterns which do nothing like automations or sequences, but are used to set only one single parameter.
Simply said, it's unknown to the application if or if not a pattern is empty. That's why this does not exist, neither in GSS nor in GSP.

If it all isn't possible, no worries. Just means it's a lot of copy pasting.

The first two have a good chance to come with one of the next updates;),