I don't understand the point of the 3d element. It seems like a great way to further complex an already overwhelming interface.
There needs to be a way to encapsulate the different components of a synth, and expand them as needed. Furthermore, there need to be ways to better organize an instrument set.
actually the interface is very simple once you grasp the synth model:
each instrument > played by 'seqencer' timeline triggers notes > whose output sound textures modified by 'automation' lines
now see a whole bunch of instruments side by side each one with its own timeline for sequencer and bunch of timelines automation
this just explodes the whole stack of standard 2d tracks to be visible all at once instead of being hidden or listed one below another
the 3d gives me a feeling of full immersion and thorough visual control, i actually crave the next step: to manipulate with my own hands these timelines in realspace
however few issues i see with 3d:
- trouble precisely aligning individual notes in time, easy in 2d grid but in 3d space they feel distant and disconnected, (messy?)) : maybe solved with a quicker more integrated swing to flattened 2d sideview or better yet - 3d gridlines
- handy way to time slice select a sub set of instruments to cut and paste slices (loops) around the song
possibly all implemented already. i'm just bsng this after view of one video
I'm not trying to say that it isn't very effective, its just that when looking at it you are presented with a lot of information simultaneously, I'm sure that after learning it, using it won't be as difficult.
But with that said, being able to reduce the amount of data confronting you would most likely be an invaluable asset. I'm no musician, nor do I have much experience with DAWs, but the ideal environment, and this is true for many things, would be one that is both expressive and easy to use. I just can't see how exploding all the components in such a manner is reaching those said goals. Why can't you just explode them when need be?
Also, why is the quality of immersion important to you? Immersion as it is well known does not make for effective or powerful interfaces. Its simply a further unnecessary abstraction between a user and the data. Correct me if I am wrong, but it doesn't seem that things like BumpTop have really caught on.
the visual 3d zooming and panning seems to work well enough to isolate focus on relevant parts while simultaneously keeping the less relevant stuff still visible in the background. the 2d flat track hiding environments are already available, the 3d is this one's edge.
by immersion i meant better coupling between my internal representation of the project/song tracks and how the program's ui represents it
however i probably got too exhuberant at first - i got carried away after the pretty graphics triggered this imaginary trip where i saw the whole thing like a giant construction site / sort of a space dock / giant cavern where my point of view is floating in the midst of it and all around me are these timeline beams which i rearrange amd modify at will. but reality is a bit limiting through the single mouse pointer.
another idea that sunk in since last post is that this program may be more practical as an addon ui envelope of sorts to already existing music production tools. currently only the ui seems to be the core benefit while a high quality music production backbone is a separate huge project in itself.
the ui may attract newbs to toy around, however advanced users will not switch from their already preferred environments unless this tool also has an edge in the music department
There needs to be a way to encapsulate the different components of a synth, and expand them as needed. Furthermore, there need to be ways to better organize an instrument set.