Maybe I'm missing something here ? I could be wrong but the Volume slider is moving up and down with the nodes, making things impossible to mix, the volume sliders should remain still, interdependent of the nodes so to adjust the overall volume on the track without the slider moving by it's self as you go to adjust it.

If you are talking about Audio Tracks, then what you are doing with the nodes is to add CC7 Volumn data to your track as can be seen from the Event List. This indeed acts exactly as you describe. I would be much happier if you could separate the overall mix volumn from the alterations caused by Node changes. This would enable changes made to the overall track volumn in the mix to be reflected by relative changes to the node values. In Midi, this is the relationship which CC11 Expression has with CC7 Volumn.

Maybe, you could allocate the track(s) to Groups in the Mixer where you can then change the Group Volumn in relation to other Groups and retain the track Nodes without change.

I hope this is of some help.

Here is a video of nodes in Audition, Reaper and Realband, watch the volume sliders.

Nodes.MP4
Nodes.WMV

I think LynB explained it.

There are two readily available controllers for volume. CC7 (volume) and CC11 (expression)

These work together by having CC7 set the loudest point a track can be (volume-wise) and CC11 controlling the range of messages from 0 to whatever CC7 set as the max volume. Both CC7 and CC11 can change at any point, but they remain in relation; CC11 always obeys the range set by CC7.

Sounds like you want the slider to be CC7 and the node to be CC11. I see why that would be good for some users.
Others may want to control the actual mixer slider. They are two different things and affect the chain differently.

It would be interesting to hear from both sides.
Personally, I'm hoping a next release has this 'node' feature assignable to different CC#'s .. so we can use it however we want. That would be cool.

You don't want this when working with audio, midi sure, you may as well just record mixer moves.
It is not a standard, did they do it this way because it was easy ? It would be great to be able to do it all in Realband with this and loops ect.. but you can't, let alone mix and master, you have to get the basic tracks done and get the hell out of it in to a proper DAW before you get yet another "Access Violation". They need to spend more time on proper DAW's to see how things work. Realtracks are wonderful don't get me wrong but the interface is so junior school and BUGGY and it takes years for a slight change, and you seem to have to fight to get industry standard things done. When you spend $200-$350 per year it would be great to see things happen.

I believe that this was just giving a new face to record mixer moves. SR could you explain your thoughts on why this method is not acceptable.

I am curious, and really want to know. Is not volume automation just turning the volume up or down?

In your mind is it a resource hog? Now I am really wondering.

Seems to me what Rharv is suggesting would be ideal, having the ability to choose between the two methods. I could see myself wanting to use one or the other, depending on situation.

Solution:
They need to take a Quantum Leap out of the old ways, get in a Professional Studio Audio Engineer software Consultant, new programers, movers and shakers etc.. or 5 years from now when they have fade curves it will still move the track volume slider.

Solution:
Put it in the wishlist forum where the developers and owner look for these type of ideas, and consider the idea and the feedback of others.

FWIW, what I see as the actual problem is that (even with 'Send realtime messages' and 'Send most recent controller' enabled) RB is not doing sending the most recent Node setting on the Audio tracks, so the slider is not resetting to where it should be when play is started at a random point in a song. I see this as a valid complaint. The slider moving; not so problem .. the slider not resetting; yes, a problem.
If you rewind (so the initial Node is sent) it does reset.

I can pass this on to support, as can you.

Using the CC11 (like the others do) adds a complexity to it for some users. Say you get the nodes set to exactly the volumes you want throughout a song. Later you decide to turn the slider up for that track to get it louder in one spot .. now all your Nodes are changed because the scale used by the Nodes has changed, so you may find yourself going back through and changing all your Nodes.

They had to pick one way or the other. They chose the one that would be simplest for the user (at least for the initial feature launch). It would have been just as easy for them to make it happen on CC11 as CC7, so I wouldn't say they did it this way because it was easier. I think it was with forethought.
When the Nodes are hidden, seeing the slider move may be a plus for some users, so they can 'see' what is going on.

I will ask the question again and hopefully get an answer. Why is the slider moving a problem? Does the other DAWs that the slider does not move actually do something different other than the slider does not actually move? Does the volume change from another level, or reason? Personally i like seeing the slider move it lets me know it is actually happening to the degree i want. But as SR seems concerned i am really curious what point i am missing.

SR, it seems you also have other issues here, with access violations, i have zero of these now days so i can't feel your pain, but is this just a moment of frustration, or is this one feature really that bad. Please do not think i am giving you a bad time i really want to know why this is bad. I guess the real question is do other DAW programs use CC7 and or CC11 to change the volume on audio tracks?

It renders the volume control useless, it now serves no purpose,
the only way to bring the volume of the track down in the mix is go through every node and move them down, listen again to the mix and say oh no, that has to go down a bit more and go through every node and move it down more, listen to the mix, oh no that is too much, go through every node and put them all up a bit and hope it is right this time, ok now for the next track, ad infinitum....
I really sorry, it is most likely my fault, I think I'm asking too much, I should wait fifty years for these things to evolve naturally in their own time.

I do see what SR is saying.
Once Nodes are set they take control of the slider. It is not a simple matter of moving the slider up/down when mixing, as the first Node message takes it over.

THIS is why CC11 seems like the best solution. The slider would set the overall volume (CC7) and the Nodes (CC11) would adjust inside of that setting.

Also, as it stands right now the slider does not reset to the correct position until a Node is hit; it does not 'look back' to where it is supposed to be when you start palyback at a given point in a song.
Example;
use Nodes to create a fade out at the end of a song. Play that section. The slider ends at zero.

Now put the cursor a couple measures before the fade out and hit play .. the volume slider stays down until the Next Node is hit to tell it where to go.

These are issues that need to be looked at, but support/development is where it needs to be brought up. This forum isn't going to fix any of it.
I notified development/support in my usual way. I suggest SR put it in the wishlist or send an email to support. I can't promise anything, but they do pay attention.

You just need volume and pan envelopes, any automation can be done in the mixer window.

Also if you cut a section of track and the copy nodes is still ticked it will then insert nodes even if there were none on the track, that will again disable the volume slider now on that track.

Gotcha, i get it now. I also agree that evolution of these type feature seem to go slow, most likely since there is so much else to work on and adjust with all the systems it does have, super midi, RTs Rd, Multiriff,Style generation.

Node based automation was my big gripe, and now we have it, and maybe they will make a small adjustment and make it work a little different as you and Rharv suggest.

Panning would be nice. I like the way Studio one handles this by allowing you to toggle between the automation tracks.

The other thing is that RB is truly not as stable as main stream DAWs yet. For me it is pretty solid, but trips over things like certain VST plugs. I do not expect RB to ever be a Cubase, or Sonar, or a Studio one (which i like the best of those three, but is still behind the other two a bit in some ways, but better in some others) but i would like to see just a few more upgrades, and then really work on stability and compatibility.

Rework this node system, add panning to it. Fix the compatibility with VSTis with timing lock, and such. Really after that for me it is not likely i would open other programs much. I would like to see at some point a solid upgrade to how audio editing is done. Do an audio edit in Sonar or Studio one and it is seamless. Watch the studio one comping video and see how that is handled. http://www.presonus.com/videos/player#Studio-One-25-Comping

Yes i know you can loop and record several tracks in a row, and use volume automation to comp, but after you see what real advanced comping is like, that seems tedious.

Great Idea !

Feb 2012 yes I repeat FEB 2012 !
Volume & Fader Curves

))) I could be wrong but the Volume slider is moving up and down with the nodes, making things impossible to mix, the volume sliders should remain still, interdependent of the nodes so to adjust the overall volume on the track without the slider moving by it's self as you go to adjust it.


Another way would be to have a volume setting that controls the whole track. For example, Ctrl click dragging the volume slider could increase all nodes by the amount of the drag, so it would then be functioning as the overall volume control that you are talking about. Without introducing 2 types of volume changes, which could be confusing.

How it is now is for Automation only, this makes mixing impossible, you don't want to see volume sliders going up and down then trying to grab hold of a slider or a pan knob while holding the Ctrl key, you need simple Volume and Pan node envelopes like every other DAW , they have this, and Automation. You need these for non deconstructive editing just to mute a part of the RT or bring a section up for the chorus, mute the unwanted noises in between vocals like clearing the throat, or pan a solo from L/R etc.. without it effecting the mixer that you are looking at while mixing, it will throw you off the mix with sliders going up and down, you need to visually see where the slide levels are. I already have Automation in the Mixer Windows.

This is not like some weird request it is a DAW standard.
Even Audacity has it, the volume slider has not moved yet the volume went down:

yeah i see what you mean, and will add that it should be a non destructive type edit. Also I will say that to remove coughs or such noises i don't use envelopes, i actually open the audio editing window and just erase the offending noise all together.

I think that back in 2012 i said add also effects, and busses and such, but actually i realize that that some of that is already possible thru mixer automation. So i just ask for what SR is asking , that would be very useful.

))) How it is now is for Automation only, this makes mixing impossible, you don't want to see volume sliders going up and down then trying to grab hold of a slider or a pan knob while holding the Ctrl



As it is now, the position of the volume slider represents the volume at the current time. The node automation is cc7 type, reflecting the volume. Sounds like you would like the node automation to be independant of the volume automation (cc7). Currently they are the same, and that the node automation represents the position of the volume slider throughout the song.

Adding additional types of automation (like a cc11 volume envelope type) one would likely do what you are wanting. So that the output at any time is a combination of the two.

Hey guys just get out of Realband for a minute and have a look at other DAW's, I put some videos up and there are plenty more on YOUTUBE
just search volume & pan envelopes, volume pan node editing, Write, Latch and Touch.... etc.. for different DAW's you will see the difference, "Seek and Ye Shall Find"
I should not have to spend so much time trying to explain one little simple Industry standard thing. As I said before you need guys that know about these things then RB will go ahead in leaps n bounds and be up there with the other DAW's but have the Amazing Awesome Advantage of having RealTracks that nothing else has. As I said JUST GET SOME NEW TALENT that is up on all of this and can work together with the team so we don't have to spend so much time here on the forum.
I had to fight hard just to get Solo Mute buttons that again is a standard. Like with the Loops you need someone who is up on it all so when you bring out that feature it works.
Here is an idea I had with a floating Loop Window with Drag n Drop but it's not new it's pretty standard been around for years:

Envelopes Vol Pan.mp4
Envelopes Vol Pan.wmv

Okay in that video it showed clip envelopes not changing the volume knob, but track automation did. So I see these as different tools as per the videos explanation. Clip env. Are to level volumes of the clips, but track automation changes the whole track. So what we have here is track envelopes.

If the slider moved, but had the ability to reset even with out a full rewind