Print

[Kmuland]

Im used to the FT2 GUI/edit mode.

There is any tracker that saves IT files and have a FT2 like GUI/edit mode?

Answer: no

There are lots of IT trackers being delevoped today:Chibytracker, Schism, Berotracker, and all of them uses the IT GUI, key shortcuts and edit mode. Others like MPT uses a windows like GUI that also seems hard to learn for brainwashed FT2 oldies.

Its so crazy the idea of an IT tracker for FT2 users?

Im pretty sure that many FT2 guys wanted to release IT files cause NNAs, filters, etc.. but the GUI/editmode of IT trackers was always a hell.

Learn the new commands for the effects is not a problem... the big problem is have to learn a new edit mode 

[pailes]

There are no "filters" in IT. There is just one filter type, and that's an IIR low pass resonant filter. That's it, it's no big deal.

[Saga Musix]

There is also a highpass filter in OpenMPT...
I guess you have to get used to one of them, Windows surface or IT surface...

[pailes]

There is also a highpass filter in OpenMPT...

Not that discussion again

[Eagle]

I can basically add that tracker design appears to have a lot to do with idolism and tradition. Basically, those that take the time to code a new tracker often make it like whatever-a-tracker the coder's favourite tracker was. Therefore you can clearly see 4 stereotype designs in many trackers:
Scream Tracker III (or IT) style, ProTracker style (or FT2), the ModPlug kind of style (characterised by tabs and a horisontal screen-wide order list) which I can't really trace back to any specific origin and then there is the more niched modular synth tracker interface (e.g. PicaTune, Aero Studio and so on).

Furthermore is that the generic features of new trackers usually follows what this supposed favourite tracker had, plus and minus a handful of features. Those who do make trackers with more thinking out of the box-ideas generally appear not to be very experienced coders, which is why I see a few ideas left in the gutters - like a multi-format tracker in FT2 style.

P.S. I have actually worked on a study over tracker design history for quite a while, which is also one reason why I collect trackers as some of the regulars on this forum may know. Eventually I will publish a lengthy literal work about it. We will see.

[raina]

Is this a library or is this a studio? Make trackers, not lengthy literal works!

[Kmuland]

Probably trackers are very sensible programs for GUI/edit mode changes since they are so so highly keyboard dependent.

You need to memorize lot of key shortcuts, you have to build a window diagraman in your mind about what keys you have to press for open certain windows or do certain edition works. Finally you maintain that "diagram" on your head, for years of tracker usage, and its really hard to change things that are "written in fire" over your way of think about "edit with trackers".

Programs that rely on mouse for edition, doesnt give so much troubles for users when they move from one to another program.

Image programs: Photoshop, corel, gimp, paint, etc.. they rely on mouse movement for edition. Maybe some menus changes but usage of the program is about the same.

Video programs: Vegas, Premiere, etc.. They rely on mouse and drag and drop sequences over horizontal bloqs... Exactly same programs with different menus. etc... the edition is always the same..

Midi sequencers: Logic, Cubase, Cakewalk, sonar, etc... They rely on mouse and a piano roll for enter notes and move events with the mouse ... Again .. same program but with different menus and options. Edition is the same. Same mouse movements

Im not saying that trackers should move to highly mouse usage.. Im noticing that moving from one tracker to another is not only a problem of get used to different menu layout or windows. It implies different way to think and try to erase a way of think that you used for years and its totally different now.

As example: If video/midi sequencers will replace the piano roll(horizontal) layout by a patterns (vertical) one ..  jumping along these programs would not be so easy for users. They would have headaches, and would not want to change program neither.

[pailes]

Image programs: Photoshop, corel, gimp, paint, etc.. they rely on mouse movement for edition. Maybe some menus changes but usage of the program is about the same.

This is totally wrong and that's why people don't move from photoshop to GIMP or whatever. Maybe you should talk to some experienced Photoshop user first. Every professional application comes along with a lot of short cuts to be memorized, but most pro apps also allow to customize keyboard short cuts.

It's not like trackers are so much different. They all have patterns/instruments, you can work with selection and so on and so on, it's just that the ancient trackers didn't follow certain rules for keyboard short cuts which are nowadays a de facto standard.

IMO all the words are just an excuse for your lazyness and unwillingness to learn a new program

[Kmuland]

This is totally wrong and that's why people don't move from photoshop to GIMP or whatever. Maybe you should talk to some experienced Photoshop user first. Every professional application comes along with a lot of short cuts to be memorized, but most pro apps also allow to customize keyboard short cuts.

Image programs: Photoshop, corel, gimp, paint, etc.. they rely on mouse movement for edition.
Im right with that. The edition rely on mouse clicks over a tool and drag with the mouse over the image. Really you dont have trouble about load an image in Gimp and edit it. Select the correct tool and do mouse clicks over the pic.

Why people use photoshop instead Gimp?
Probably algorithms in photoshop gives more professional result than gimp...
Audacity algorithms are not so good than Soundforge or Wavelab or adobe audition...

 ...but this is not the reason about why lot of amateur home users prefer photoshop instead of GIMP.

They uses Photoshop cause they have used the Photoshop GUI for years and they want in GIMP a protoshop clone.
They know where the tools are placed into the floating windows of photoshop... where the options are placed. They know the arrange of the icons. They want same GUI of photoshop.
   
Tracking in FT2 was always hard for IT users... cause GUI, edit mode, windows layout
Why FT2 guys have similar problem when they move to IT or MPT. Dont you think that it is cause same problem?

This is not a personal post for you Pailes. You told me several times that you will not code a Milkytracker with IT edit support, so I losed the illusion. Ill not insist.

This is a post for future tracker coders.

[pailes]

This is not a personal post for you Pailes. You told me several times that you will not code a Milkytracker with IT edit support, so I losed the illusion. Ill not insist.

This is a post for future tracker coders.

I know that this is not for me, but I'm giving you advice:
Those differences between IT/MPT and FT2 are just about a few keyboard short cuts. Why not going to learn the most important ways and prove yourself you'll still able to learn? Others are able to do it too. Many people are using different trackers and get the best out of different worlds.
Don't sit around waiting for something that will most probably not happen. Be flexible and be able to adapt new ways of doing something. This world is moving so fast, why stick to something that is most likely not going to happen? You'll probably miss some important things just because you're too lazy or stubborn.

My two cents, think about it.