Sequencing channels vs tracks

[Guest Don Gillespie]

wallleyes wrote:

Your elements in your display stay just where you have them set up.All the tracks do is pretty much group the channels together for you.You will see every element you have turned on in the display.you will see all tracks that are sequenced light up at the same time.

That pretty much sums up what I thought definatly the way to go for larger displays

thanks guys

[George Simmons]

Don Gillespie wrote:

Well it seems like a no brainer for sequencing purposes, George what would be the resasoning for a track with all the channels on it?

I think you guys have confused me with someone else. I have never had a master track, nor can I see any reason to have one. I'm sure others can speak more authoritatively on this. From my perspective it would only potentially cause problems and issues that I don't have now.

Be careful that you don't mix the terms tracks and channels in your thinking. It's the channels that you draw in the animation, regardless of where you keep those channels in your sequence setup. And it's the channels that you program. As Walleyes said, a track is simply a place (or places) you keep your channels listed and/or divided up in whatever way fits your display or fits how you think.

[Tim Fischer]

Mike G wrote:

I don't have that large of a display, 64 channels but I started using tracks for the first time this year and found that if I assigned certain elements of my display to it's own track I could have each track with its own timing marks. before I had a bunch of timing marks all over the place and sequencing was a real chore. Now I find it a whole lot easier.

I used to use tracks this way, but converted all my sequences to use multiple timing sets instead, as all my tracks contained all channels anyway.

I'm just shy of 200 channels this year, so it might make sense for me to break things up into logical groups using tracks soon. But old habits die hard