Parameter lists

IvanS 2018-09-16 20:37:51 UTC #1

Description of feature (short and simple):

Is it possible to make parameter lists have better order? For example now Gate 1 and Gate 2/3…/8 are not together, same goes for other parameters, number 1 is never together with 2/3/4/…/8. With the addition of the sampler parameters, it is not very intuitive and a bit confusing to navigate lists. Would be nice if for example in the case of a sampler, all parameters were layed out like this:
1:Gate1
1:Gate 2
.
.
.
1:Gate 8.

The same idea applies to all other parameters like pitch and others.

How will this feature improve the workflow or experience for all SSP users (keep it short and focused):

It will improve list navigation since all parameters are grouped with each other,

BrettSaberhagen 2018-09-17 02:08:31 UTC #2

+1 @IvanS - this is a very good idea.

tiger001 2018-09-17 05:40:24 UTC #3

looks intuitive and logical at the same time

bert 2018-09-17 06:42:23 UTC #4

maybe i can do an alphabetical sort on the lists and that would solve the problem. I have other stuff to work on first though…

IvanS 2018-09-17 08:02:10 UTC #5

Alphabetical should work, but I hope it doesn’t arrange the parameters in a weird way. For example it makes sense when the layout is like this: pitch/ gate/ amp. But with alphabetical it will be different. Anyways let us know how it works) Maybe keeping the same order as now would be best, as long as the destinations are grouped the right way.

bert 2018-09-17 08:20:17 UTC #6

ok, lets not do alphabetical then

there is no way for me right now to change the ordering if we stick with the current list, maybe i can think of a solution to this at some point and then i’ll post it here

NeilParfitt 2018-09-17 18:52:09 UTC #7

What about alpha-numeric order? I know if I sort stuff in OSX finder it lists out like below:

Amp 1
Amp 2
Amp 3
Gate 1
Gate 2
Gate 3
Pitch 1
Pitch 2
Pitch 3

etc…

bert 2018-09-17 20:25:48 UTC #8

what is what I meant, I guess I should have said alphanumeric instead of alphabetic.

2disbetter 2018-09-18 17:35:03 UTC #9

As a quick fix, alphanumeric would be ideal.

I understand that a more sorted logic would be preferred later, but I think the main point of the fix is accomplished via alphanumeric. Certainly something that can be fine tuned later on down the road.

tiger001 2019-08-09 06:34:17 UTC #10

is this alfanumeric order implemented ?

now, when i patch an LFO, on the INPUT module, i get 3 LFO parameters, then all sampler modules parameters en then again 2 (other) LFO parameters

bert 2019-08-09 19:14:11 UTC #11

nothing has been done to change the order of the parameter lists, the multichannel update (which many people asked for) has taken months of development, so other features have been delayed as a result of that.