CPU efficient pianoroll-less RAM?

[Nubeat7]

just updated the file in the previous post - there was some small bug with the sequence update after presetchange...

[Nubeat7]

actually it is also much more efficient to use just one view and mouse area instead of creating one for each note
here is the modified version for it

[nix]

There seems to be something wrong with it on my machine.
It loads with a Ruby error,
which, when cleared recurs when you try and draw notes.
The error is:

Ruby error.png (51.02 KiB) Viewed 17334 times

But I get the idea, thanks so much for trying to help me nut this out.
So there is no way to store float arrays other than RAM?
Would it be possible to read and write text? Would that end up on disk?

[Nubeat7]

damn it! i'm using 3.06 where it is working fine, which methode fails with arguments? i didn't use any methode with 2 arguments

the only thing which is not done very proper is the update of the @notes with the preset input this should only happen on presetchanges and not each time the values are changing.. i changed this and updated the last download, but this shouldn't be the issue or?

i also included some lines for more detailed error message to find out where exactly the error happens..

i think to load and save text files in this size (4096*113*nr of presets and then extracting everything to the right place) could be timeconsuming too

[MyCo]

method name "send" is built-in, you shouldn't overwrite it for any other purpose

[nix]

Yep- that fixed it
Thanks Maik!
I'll think about making it like this NuBeat-
it means building it again-
what sort of RAM do you think this way would take in a similar length and height piano roll?
Here is the altered file->

seqDCnubeat7_v0_3_0.fsm

(9.24 KiB) Downloaded 1185 times

Cheers compadres

[Nubeat7]

oh thanks myco!

about the size, this is depending on how much notes you want to allow which would depend on the smallest note resolution and the nr of sections but i think with 2000 for 8 sections in a min resolution of 64th notes should be enough
which would be 2 preset arrays with each 2000 elements

but there is also the ruby array handling which will require some space (i think so or!?) but all in all it will load pretty fast and it will be just a little piece of that what it is now