Annoying Issue: "Hide All Automation" removes automation lanes!

really, it’s just a sloppy naming differentiation of different functions at parts of the program at the base long-time level of the software, if you really look at how it’s handled from a track topology perspective looking at the pop-up names:

popups

On the track itself you have:
‘Show/Hide Automation’
button toggle unfolds/folds the automation lanes of the selected track to how the user had last setup which automation lanes were visible/added… Clicking the toggle to hide, does not remove unused automation lanes/tracks.

key commands
‘Show Automation’ command is a one-way command for the above to unfold automation tracks/lanes.
and
‘Hide Automation’ command is a one-way command for the above toggle to fold automation tracks/lanes back into the top-level track just like the track header toggle, it does not remove unused automation lanes/tracks.

The above two commands are clearly directed at this top-level track header toggle.

Now, with that in mind, One would expect ‘Hide All Automation’ command to do the above ‘Hide Automation’ command but for all tracks. It doesn’t, instead, it is directed at the ‘Hide Automation TRACK’ button on the actual automation track header of unused automation tracks which removes them, and, it’s directed at the top-level track ‘Show/Hide Automation’ simultaneously.

This still doesn’t explain the naming and execution of ‘Hide All Automation’ command function though, because it’s not named ‘Hide All Automation TRACKS’, nor is it named ‘Hide All Unused Automation TRACKS and Hide Automation’

so my point stands, that this is either a long time unnoticed bug, or just bad inconsistent design -which either way, is an issue and not a feature request.

@LoveGames I agree with the linguistic aspect of your critique. The names of things in Cubase are sometimes not translated from the German in the best way, and becomes jargon specific to Cubase. That can result in interpretations that give the wrong expectation.

I would recommend using more neutral language in your descriptions though. I believe the result would be a discussion more akin in tone to a scientific or engineering discussion. If the conversation is less emotionally charged, the issues at hand would be more in the forefront, and people who shy away from such charged topics (including SB staff) might be more likely to read and even participate.

2 Likes

I do my best in various states of sleep deprivation…

sorry @st10ss there’s been multiple times where it’s been hard to tell if you’re just trolling me an intentionally circular endless argument, or if you’re actually trying to make a counter-point… I really honestly could not tell mate… my disposition was based off that perception but I’d still buy you a beer

I should try to explain it more detailed… what my point is
but I guess I need more time to do it…

If you take a small amount of time, to for a second forget your own existence and stop and listen to what someone is taking the time to say and has already thought about - you might not need to explain anything at all…

as already mentioned, you forget the others that need a different workflow
my conference is starting in some minutes… can’t answer more now

How is your or anyones workflow affected by my requested change? As I asked earlier, why would you even be adding, enmasse, automation lanes that you do not need in which you would need to use this command as it currently is? As you said, “automation lanes that contain no data are senseless…” so why would you be adding so many that you need to remove them all via “Hide All Automation” aka, “Remove All Unused Automation Tracks”? So your disposition here, to me doesn’t really make sense.

Secondly, you could still use ‘Show - Only Used’ to remove all unused automation lanes.

as already stated it is not the fact that the lanes get “removed” it is the fact that the restore of the previous state of view is not what is wanted…
we need to view only used automation lanes (lanes with data) no matter if we had empty lanes enabled before or not.

Again mate, you have not taken a moment, to actually read what someone has said. Maybe it’s a language thing. Whatever it is, you really need to slow down and take a moment to comprehend and internalize what someone has said, stop thinking about you and your position and trying to hold it an listen.

As has been stated, in the - first - post of the thread - what you are saying - simply - is not true wit the other commands ‘Hide Automation’, and ‘Show Automation’.

Secondly, when would there ever be case, of someone intentionally opening automation tracks they - aren’t - going - to - use, across multiple channels in a project, in which they would have to use ‘Hide All Automation’ to remove them all? who does that? no one. No one does that. No one randomly opens tens of unused automation lanes just to remove them all after.

Third,

There is a command for this, ‘Show - Only Used’. it shows only the use automation, and removes the unused automation. So you have what you need, even Steinberg made the change im requesting.

don’t reply. read. and figure out what I’m saying.


@Innervision / / / / try reading the thread before making a pointless reply

If you want to use these automation tracks, either don’t hide them or add a data dot for reference at the beginning of your project for each track. You’re welcome.

This debate is going nowhere, time to close the topic.