Request little feature: show/hide unused binding while changing states

bindings
Tags: #<Tag:0x00007fb8280d9f98>

#1

Hi @brad! I work with songs that can have lots of states. There are many bindings used like this image


I switch states, change even and odd times, change notes etc… by playing notes or my foot pedal.
I would like to ask if you can code a simple “Automatic hide” button to automatic hide disabled bindings from the TAB Bindings while current state is on like this:

The idea would be add to the right of the window a little button like “table/wiring view” in tab Routing
In this way all “common” bindings will stay visible with only the “good” bindings while the others not.

Thank you very much, Andrea.


#2

Hi @KimeraBubble

So basically a way to hide disabled bindings? Sounds reasonable.

I’ve got to ask though… do you really need so many bindings? The target side of a binding can be controlled by states directly. Can you not reduce the number of bindings by having one binding for each source event and re-configuring the target side for the different actions per-state?

Brad


#3

And/Or use the ability to group bindings to organise them. E.g. a group for common bindings, and so on.


#4

Hm, or would it be possible to also have control over the source side for each state? I guess not…


#5

Hi @brad! Yes but the sources not. The problem is that i use differents notes for the sources (per state) to change target like the images above. If i remember correctly i can’t control the source and target together by states.
Imagine a behaviour in wich i play, then there is a note (in the song that sounds) that triggers a new tempo and/or change state (like different sound) and so on. The notes i’m playing are always different. Here there is the difficult to organize the bindings.
(sorry for my bad english)

Hi @Derek I tried to use group but they also haven’t an auto hiding feature so the problem is the same. Naturally it shoud be more readable if we can hide disable bindings and show also the groups with only those enabled.


#6

Either hiding a binding or controlling the source of a binding with the state would help me too to keep the oversight.


#7

Control the source would be the best because in that way we could use less bindings with more powerful use and avoiding risk of trigger conflicts between bindings themself.


#8

Absolutely. This would clean up my setup extremely!


#9

Unfortunately there are technical difficulties with this. I did try implementing this at one point and it didn’t really work but I can’t remember why off hand.

Hiding bindings though should be doable. I’ve logged it here.


#10

Thank you Brad! I too thought the implementation of controlling the source would be difficult but it’s ok, step by step :wink: