Pattern delete

[Barney Rubble]

On a track I select an isolated non-active pattern while the sequencer is playing. I try to delete and nothing happens. I can change this pattern to one I created earlier and I can create a new pattern but I can not delete it.

Is this a bug or intended behaviour?

cheers
b

[Johnny]

you need to stop clock. (shift+stop)
and i think it’s intended.
like preventing accidentally deleting pattern which is currently playing..?

cheers, johnny

[Barney Rubble]

Thanks Johnny I get what you're saying -: Stop the sequencer to delete a pattern.

But consider idea of playing live with a track that has multiple islands of patterns. Then while one of the island patterns are playing you decide to edit one of the other pattern islands that is not playing. Perhaps one would want to shorten that sequence of patterns or split that sequence of patterns. Trouble is you can't do that but you can overwrite a pattern by pressing the OK button and you can also change that pattern to one that has been already created. But oddly I can't delete it.

In the preferences one can turn of the edit mode to stop the accidental deletion which is great if the song is fixed.

Sometimes when I'm noodling around I would like to be able to delete non-active patterns just to change the arrangement.

I hope this makes sense

cheers
b

[captainhooke]

Thanks Johnny I get what you're saying -: Stop the sequencer to delete a pattern.

But consider idea of playing live with a track that has multiple islands of patterns.  Then while one of the island patterns are playing you decide to edit one of the other pattern islands that is not playing. Perhaps one would want to shorten that sequence of patterns or split that sequence of patterns. Trouble is you can't do that but you can overwrite a pattern by pressing the OK button and you can also change that pattern to one that has been already created. But oddly I can't delete it.

In the preferences one can turn of the edit mode to stop the accidental deletion which is great if the song is fixed.

Sometimes when I'm noodling around I would like to be able to delete non-active patterns just to change the arrangement.

I hope this makes sense

cheers
b

+1

would love to be able to delete, copy, paste patterns with the sequencer running. that would be a big thing for me.

[josker]

noticed this - also hoping for a way to modify patterns while the sequencer is playing - I don’t like stopping the music if there’s no need. Maybe it could be a configurable preference.

[ianski]

This is a very much needed update I think and has been requested a number of times.
I can see it helps for the overly cautious, but for the rest of us it's a bit of a drawback. It's like Nerdseq doesn't "trust" us to not make mistakes lol.

[colb]

+1 this request. Even for active patterns!

I suppose one issue is what behaviour would make sense in the case that the pattern currently being played is deleted. It makes sense to me that if an active pattern is deleted, then nerdseq should revert to the rule it would follow if we tell it to play an empty pattern field - search up to find the nearest 'island' and queue that for playing at the next sync point. Or maybe stop the track first then do the search up thing...

(Maybe the problem is due to implementation? If the 'now' and 'next' patterns are assumed to remain consistent, and the code depends on this assumption, then allowing deletion could mess things up. This could require something of a re-write, potentially effecting lots of other code which could end up being a massive job... only Thomas knows for sure )

[XORadmin]

+1 this request. Even for active patterns!

I suppose one issue is what behaviour would make sense in the case that the pattern currently being played is deleted. It makes sense to me that if an active pattern is deleted, then nerdseq should revert to the rule it would follow if we tell it to play an empty pattern field - search up to find the nearest 'island' and queue that for playing at the next sync point. Or maybe stop the track first then do the search up thing...

(Maybe the problem is due to implementation? If the 'now' and 'next' patterns are assumed to remain consistent, and the code depends on this assumption, then allowing deletion could mess things up. This could require something of a re-write, potentially effecting lots of other code which could end up being a massive job... only Thomas knows for sure )

And he knows!
And indeed plenty would have to be changed in order to keep it running well. I mentioned that already several times.
Though still a job that i got to do, i think there is still more important stuff to do first.