Yxx for all channels? - FamiTracker

# FamiTracker

FamiTracker Support Forums

Skip to content

## Yxx for all channels?

Post about feature requests here.
Post Reply

- Print view

15 posts

- 1
- 2
- Next

ollaxe
  Posts: 736
  Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2015 7:07 pm
  Location: Sweden
  Contact:
  Contact ollaxe
  Website Twitter YouTube Google+

### Yxx for all channels?

- Quote

Post by ollaxe » Mon Apr 27, 2015 3:10 pm

I'd like to request a feature: The ability to use the Yxx-effect on all other channels than the DPCM.
Let me try to explain: Yxx would, when put on another channel than the DPCM, start the instrument one engine cycle farther into the instrument.
If anything is unclear, just tell me, and I'll try to explain in a better way, or make some visual demonstration.
Thank you!
Last edited by ollaxe on Tue Apr 28, 2015 5:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
Hi! I'm not really active here anymore but I still make music. Nowadays I mostly make dubstep with emphasis on good melodies and chord progressions.
SoundCloud: soundcloud.com/ollaxe
Twitter: twitter.com/ollaxe
Discord server: dis.gd/tK7uRnc
I'm also on Spotify. Search "OllAxe" and you'll find me.
Top

Dr. Merio
  Posts: 680
  Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2015 6:25 pm
  Location: On your screen
  Contact:
  Contact Dr. Merio
  Website Facebook Twitter Skype
  YouTube Google+

### Re: Yxx for all channels?

- Quote

Post by Dr. Merio » Mon Apr 27, 2015 3:43 pm

The only problem I see with this is that you wouldn't have individual control on every sequence on an instrument (which may be desired but it's way too specific), but even if this controls everything at the same time it would be quite useful, since it would also allow more recycling for single-envelope instruments.
My current avatar is why we need bigger avatars. >:C
Check out my YouTube channel!
[Dropbox (my FT stuff)]
Top

ollaxe
  Posts: 736
  Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2015 7:07 pm
  Location: Sweden
  Contact:
  Contact ollaxe
  Website Twitter YouTube Google+

### Re: Yxx for all channels?

- Quote

Post by ollaxe » Mon Apr 27, 2015 4:35 pm

> Dr. Merio wrote:The only problem I see with this is that you wouldn't have individual control on every sequence on an instrument (which may be desired but it's way too specific), but even if this controls everything at the same time it would be quite useful, since it would also allow more recycling for single-envelope instruments.

Why would it control multiple channels at a time? It would just start playing later into the instrument once on the note it's placed next to.
Hi! I'm not really active here anymore but I still make music. Nowadays I mostly make dubstep with emphasis on good melodies and chord progressions.
SoundCloud: soundcloud.com/ollaxe
Twitter: twitter.com/ollaxe
Discord server: dis.gd/tK7uRnc
I'm also on Spotify. Search "OllAxe" and you'll find me.
Top

Dr. Merio
  Posts: 680
  Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2015 6:25 pm
  Location: On your screen
  Contact:
  Contact Dr. Merio
  Website Facebook Twitter Skype
  YouTube Google+

### Re: Yxx for all channels?

- Quote

Post by Dr. Merio » Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:09 pm

Heheh you didn't get what I meant. :P
I mean the sequences in an instrument (i.e. volume, arpeggio, etc.). Having control over all of those at the same time would be neat because it would allow reusing instruments in certain situations, and it would also be of general convenience. Maybe someone will ask for absolute control (i.e. controlling every sequence independently) but I personally think that's overkill.
So yeah, I'd like to see this implemented. I've run into a few situations when something like this would be quite useful.
My current avatar is why we need bigger avatars. >:C
Check out my YouTube channel!
[Dropbox (my FT stuff)]
Top

Xyz
  Posts: 297
  Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2015 4:36 pm

### Re: Yxx for all channels?

- Quote

Post by Xyz » Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:30 pm

I'm not sure how easy this would be to implement because with the DPCM channel all you need to do hardware-wise is update one value in register $4012 and one in $4013. It sounds much more complicated I think to apply that to software envelopes.
>:( Fuck you hentai boy i hate you squid anus
Top

ollaxe
  Posts: 736
  Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2015 7:07 pm
  Location: Sweden
  Contact:
  Contact ollaxe
  Website Twitter YouTube Google+

### Re: Yxx for all channels?

- Quote

Post by ollaxe » Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:36 pm

> Dr. Merio wrote:Heheh you didn't get what I meant.
> I mean the sequences in an instrument (i.e. volume, arpeggio, etc.). Having control over all of those at the same time would be neat because it would allow reusing instruments in certain situations, and it would also be of general convenience. Maybe someone will ask for absolute control (i.e. controlling every sequence independently) but I personally think that's overkill.
> So yeah, I'd like to see this implemented. I've run into a few situations when something like this would be quite useful.

Oh, now I understand what you meant! Sorry...
Yeah, it would be pretty neat and helpful to have control over each of them individually! Inactivating or changing idividual sequences on the fly could be quite a timesaver! But as you already said, it would definitely be overkill.
Hi! I'm not really active here anymore but I still make music. Nowadays I mostly make dubstep with emphasis on good melodies and chord progressions.
SoundCloud: soundcloud.com/ollaxe
Twitter: twitter.com/ollaxe
Discord server: dis.gd/tK7uRnc
I'm also on Spotify. Search "OllAxe" and you'll find me.
Top

ollaxe
  Posts: 736
  Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2015 7:07 pm
  Location: Sweden
  Contact:
  Contact ollaxe
  Website Twitter YouTube Google+

### Re: Yxx for all channels?

- Quote

Post by ollaxe » Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:39 pm

> Xyz wrote:I'm not sure how easy this would be to implement because with the DPCM channel all you need to do hardware-wise is update one value in register $4012 and one in $4013. It sounds much more complicated I think to apply that to software envelopes.

Really? It doesn't really sound like it would be that much of a struggle to add. But the only one that could really know that would be jsr himself.
Hi! I'm not really active here anymore but I still make music. Nowadays I mostly make dubstep with emphasis on good melodies and chord progressions.
SoundCloud: soundcloud.com/ollaxe
Twitter: twitter.com/ollaxe
Discord server: dis.gd/tK7uRnc
I'm also on Spotify. Search "OllAxe" and you'll find me.
Top

jsr
  Site Admin
  Posts: 112
  Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2015 1:25 pm

### Re: Yxx for all channels?

- Quote

Post by jsr » Mon Apr 27, 2015 10:42 pm

It's not really different implementing it for other channels than for the DPCM channel, it's only that I've seen more use for it for the DPCM channel.
This has been requested before so I'll prioritize it.
Famitracker developer
Top

Stratelier
  Posts: 378
  Joined: Sun Apr 26, 2015 7:46 pm

### Re: Yxx for all channels?

- Quote

Post by Stratelier » Tue Apr 28, 2015 1:01 am

> Xyz wrote:I'm not sure how easy this would be to implement because with the DPCM channel all you need to do hardware-wise is update one value in register $4012 and one in $4013. It sounds much more complicated I think to apply that to software envelopes.

That is true -- it'd basically be a different effect on the inside -- but the data pertaining to software envelopes has to be stored somewhere in the RAM....

> ollaxe wrote:Yxx would, when put on another channel than the DPCM, start the instrument x/A second(s) farther in. (x = whatever number you put in, A = the engine speed)

It makes more sense for the parameter to be measured in engine cycles, like Gxx/Sxx are.
But yes, the ability to do this could certainly help eliminate a few dupe instruments here and there.
Top

Dr. Merio
  Posts: 680
  Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2015 6:25 pm
  Location: On your screen
  Contact:
  Contact Dr. Merio
  Website Facebook Twitter Skype
  YouTube Google+

### Re: Yxx for all channels?

- Quote

Post by Dr. Merio » Tue Apr 28, 2015 1:06 am

> Stratelier wrote:

> > ollaxe wrote:Yxx would, when put on another channel than the DPCM, start the instrument x/A second(s) farther in. (x = whatever number you put in, A = the engine speed)

> It makes more sense for the parameter to be measured in engine cycles, as Gxx/Sxx are.

Given that "x = whatever number you put in" and "A = the engine speed", if:
x = 03
A = 180
3/180 = 0,1666...67 seconds = 3 engine cycles
Therefore your argument is redundant.
My current avatar is why we need bigger avatars. >:C
Check out my YouTube channel!
[Dropbox (my FT stuff)]
Top

Display posts from previous:
Sort by

Post Reply

- Print view

15 posts

- 1
- 2
- Next

Return to “Feature Requests”

Jump to

- Rules
- Wiki
- FamiTracker
- General Talk
- Bug Reports
- Feature Requests
- Source and development
- Music
- Original Music
- Cover Music
- Other
- Site Issues & Suggestions