Automation track data should be capable of being selected and simplified / reduced for easier editing.
Implement a “simplify / reduce” automation data function that will remove as many automation points as possible while remaining closely related to the original automation data shape.
This would be a perfect complement to the automation “reduction level” setting.
Isn’t this function not the same?
Hi @wavefunktion,
to begin with, it might always be better to avoid too many manually written curve points right away, which is often the case by only using the Object Selection and Edit tools.
In many cases and in order to achieve more defined automation curve shapes, you can use one of the 5 curve type choices (please see the toolbar) with the Line tool.
Often curves are of the ramp type. Only those that are not would need to be manually written (or sent in by a MIDI controller) and then thinned out, ideally (and generally) by adjusting the Reduction Level value in advance (any value between 50 to 90 % would work reasonably well in most cases).
Of course one can also avoid to “relentlessly” draw automation curves, by only adding single curve points manually, in order to create just enough curve skeleton anchor points, and then finalize curve editing by dragging those added points around in a meaningful way - while listening. One can always add or remove a few more points to achieve smoother curves.
Best,
Markus
Hi Steffen / @st10ss,
what we already have is kind of a “PRE” version of the thinning out function.
If I understand @wavefunktion’s request correctly, he was referring to a “POST” version of it - which could be applied freely after having already written an automation curve (or after having received CC controller data via MIDI).
Best,
Markus
Exactly, I want a post version of thinning automation data. I believe a thinning out algorithm could do a better job at minimizing automation data points while maintaining the overall shape. Additionally it could be applied via a hotkey and wouldn’t require fiddling around with the reduction level setting multiple times to try and find the right threshold.
Hi @wavefunktion,
thanks for clarifying.
I suppose that a “POST” version of the thinning-out function might still have to have its own treshold / effectivity setting, though.
Perhaps also some additional parameters like its own set of spline curves (here I’m only speculating a bit).
Best wishes,
Markus
It could, but in other DAWs it seems like the developers made that decision of what they think works best and it seems to work fine, just an observation.
Hi @wavefunktion,
since it seems like a good idea to have this added, could you perhaps make an official feature request post - while referring to this discussion here?
Or even add a request to that large “Cubase 15 wishlist” (plus bug list) thread?
(which has already gotten fairly complex)
Cheers,
Markus