Hi, and thanks to both of you for taking the time to reply to my issue.
Yes it describes the desired behavior perfectly, and it is way better explained than my previous messages were ![]()
I’ve managed to get the behavior that I was looking for by letting go of the nested multi instrument solution, as Alcibiade suggested, and without using any line of code, which in my case feels more convinient.
Because the setup is hard to explain in details without visual, here is a demo project of what I managed to do : sequencial playlists in random structure - Google Drive .
I use 3 global parameter :
- currentPlaylist
- lastPlaylist
- retrig
At the start of the event I have two sets of 5 transitions, leading to one of the five global sequential playlists. I also have 5 nested instruments which are triggered at the end of their related playlist inside the multis. Those nested instruments are restarting the parent event by setting the retrig parameter to 1, thus triggering the condition for the “To Start” transition region to occur (the retrig parameter is reset to 0 at each call); and are setting the lastPlaylist parameter to the value representing their multi inside the parent event. This allows us to obtain a shuffle behaviour where the last playing playlist is never repeated before the next one is exhausted.
At the begining of each playlist (in the timeline) there is a command instrument that sets the currentPlaylist parameter to the value representing the multi currently playing, so at the next call, the first set of transition can directly play the same playlist as long as the lastPlaylist parameter is different of the currentPlaylist parameter.
There is a lot of trigger conditions going on in the transitions, but basically, that’s it. It is messy but it does the trick.
Thank you Alcibiade and Joseph for your help !
I think the solution I came across is a little bit far-fetched, and I’d have liked to be able to use a more minimalistic option. However, I don’t think I’ve seen anybody else requesting such a feature so I leave you judge of wether or not it is relevant to add it to the tracker.
Considering the complexity of redesigning the multi instrument, and the fact that it is already a very powerful and flexible tool, I understand that it would not be a priority.