Automation FR: Preference to resolve automation scaling creating unwanted nodes

Cubase
,
1

I don’t think Steinberg quite has this behavior dialed.

There needs to be conditions that determine the desired behavior

In basic non-modifier conditions, if selecting nodes using the selection tool - it should only move the nodes the user has selected.

Now, potentially in this situation, there could be a ctrl/alt/shift modifier that does create nodes if the user wants. But it shouldn’t be the default behavior. Maybe a preference.

If the user is using the range tool, this is when new nodes are and should be created.

Part of the problem is, the only way new nodes won’t be created, is if the automation segments corners are completely square/vertical as seen in above video.

Am I the only one bothered by this? Am I missing a hidden function?

1 Like
2

Hi,

If you change the values in the Info line, the nodes are not created.

3

Yeah I don’t want to have to go to the info line for that.

I can also just select an individual node in the selection, but it’s annoying to have to do that as well, they are small, and it doesn’t behave in the same manner.

edit

Automation Lane Creates New Nodes - Nuendo - Steinberg Forums

4

Here’s another thread on the topic.

Unfortunately Steinberg refuses to see the issue with this and Martin will continue to refer to using the Info Line.

If you use the exact same function in the MIDI Key Editor, no new nodes are created.
If you use Scale Vertically, it actually moves the nodes, not scale them. This whole feature on automation tracks is broken.

1 Like
5

Hi,

I will probably repeat myself, sorry…

In Cubase and Nuendo, you have both options (create the nodes or not), depending on the way, how do you change the value. I don’t see anything wrong on it, of both needed use cases are covered.

Btw, you can also use Project Logical Editor to Trim Automation data. You can even create your own presets and assign a Key Command.

The trend is to don’t overload the Preferences, which are quite full already.

Please, don’t get me wrong. I’m not against any feature request. I just try to point to the already existing features and show you the way, how you can solve your use case in the existing version.

6

There are workarounds, and PLE, etc, etc.

But day to day, moment to moment, it’s just not how people are working.

7

Then I will repeat myself as well.
Nowhere in the manual does it say that the same tool will produce two different results as they do in Automation Tracks vs MIDI CC Lanes.

No explanation or acknowledgment has been given as to why Scale Vertically doesn’t actually scale but instead moves the nodes.

These Quick tools are unusable for myself and everyone who has ever posted about them here.

8

Hi,

The pro Nuendo users are mostly using PLE or Direct Offline Process presets for these tasks in their daily bussiness. 8 hours per day. :wink:

9

Hi,

I agree, the manual could be more precise and informative in this area.

10

I’m a PLE master. No one in the world has my scripts. I work 14 hours a day, currently on my 16th.

thanks

11

My FR tackles both options/methods/way does it not?

So the FR is better than the current paradigm. It solves the problem for us, while leaving the original way available via modifier.

But the default should be as I specified - when a user is selecting something - usually that is what they want to move… and without creating something new.

1 Like
12

And why would anyone want the shapes that are created as a result of this behavior… the end output result… it’s not something people want under most circumstances. no one wants this shape

3 Likes
13

Hi,

I’m using both ways, because I need both use cases. Yes, there are users need these shapes.

14

How often are people using that shape vs just needing to lower a range of nodes together? 40/60? 5/95?

Perhaps a filter sweep, or a swell, or reverb sends would use that shape, but usually not mirrored on both ends like that.

Explain to me what you are using these shapes for, and how often?

15

I’m going to guess, at the very most, 10/90. And if you want that shape, there’s ways to create it for those odd times. But at least 90% of time… I just want to quickly lower/raise a group of nodes together without creating a weird shape I have to delete after.

Here’s the other HUGE problem we’re not talking about.

Whether or not the user is aware of what is going to happen with the behavior, depends on how far zoomed in they are.

In this video, at first the segment is perfectly square so, no new nodes are created. But if this segment is at a certain slight angle, and the user is zoomed out, they cant see whether it’s perfectly square or not… I mean, it’s a very very very slight thing… look:

Sorry, no. That is just terrible UX. It makes no sense, way too inconsistent, unpredictable, unseeable. Does not work. Broken. Annoying. Time wasting.

16

Agree 100%.

@Martin.Jirsak No comment on why Scale Vertically and Move Vertically seemingly does the same thing?

1 Like
17

22 posts were split to a new topic: Move vs Scale automation nodes

18

it is simply not common sense how cubase behaves in this case. i can also see absolutely NO case or use or practical reason for the creation of 2 new curve points in the way demonstrated here. why would i ever want to do that?
so, yes, there is a workaround. but it is inconsistent, puts a bump into the workflow and does not make any sense.
and YES, feature request!!! (take a cue from almost every other DAW…)

1 Like
19

Hi,

Simply because you don’t want to affect any other area but the selected one. What is always the case when you work in the post-production.

20

the functionality that is asked for here would not preclude doing that…
but i hear you and will patiently work around things :wink:
it’s just the cubase way and i am following it since the 80’s…
it’s still a fantastic DAW!

1 Like