Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
(Increased) quantity of tables?
#1
Especially with all of the features they’ve been gaining, I can imagine myself exhausting the available tables relatively soon.

(That said, I’m a relatively recent adopter of NerdSEQ (four months, give or take, and really only just now ramping up my usage) and so perhaps I’m just overestimating the number of tables I’d use.)

Has there been thought to supporting a greater number of tables, perhaps even if via a project-configurable trade-off against other things, whether patterns, patches, sample memory, or whatever options could be provided?

(In addition, or alternatively, I’d love to hear how many tables more experienced users tend to use, along with any available insight as to how to make the best of few.)
Reply
#2
I could probably get rid of patches and add more tables. But also patches get also a bit more significance in the future.

I can't only add more tables as they is not really memory left for this.
Also i am not a friend of a flexible project selection ( more tables, less patterns...) or something like this.

I guess a good compromise would be decrease to 128 patches and increase the tables to 64 tables. I do see the new potential use of tables and that 32 can be a little bit less in some cases.
PLEASE use the search function if something have been asked or discussed before.
Every (unnessesary) forum support means less time to develop! But of course, i am here to help!  Smile
Reply
#3
(12-16-2020, 09:35 PM)XORadmin Wrote: I could probably get rid of patches and add more tables. But also patches get also a bit more significance in the future. 

CV16 patches with the ability to target all attached CV16 expanders, for example? Smile

(12-16-2020, 09:35 PM)XORadmin Wrote: Also i am not a friend of a flexible project selection ( more tables, less patterns...) or something like this. 

As a software engineer, but also more generally, I totally understand your desire to minimize variables like this. Such choices always sound easy but the devil is in the details.

(12-16-2020, 09:35 PM)XORadmin Wrote: I guess a good compromise would be decrease to 128 patches and increase the tables to 64 tables. I do see the new potential use of tables and that 32 can be a little bit less in some cases.

That’s probably a reasonable middle ground, whether configurable for an existing project or perhaps even if restricted to only being an option one can select while creating a new project, just to help minimize a few of those details. Wink
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)