You could adjust the Dry/Wet to achieve what you want - for example use the parametered macro preset type "Macro controls plugin dry/wet ratio" and then put that macro on an unused channel, assign the plugin that should be switched on/off to that channel and then call Z00 to mute the macro and Z7F to enable it.

but doesn't this solution still force the same plugin to be assigned to a channel for the whole song? what I wanted was a way to flexibly call different plugins at different times on the same channel.

Well, you can execute the Dry/Wet macro on another channel as well, as long as either
1) the plugin in question is assigned to the channel as a channel plugin
2) the channel has no channel plugin, but the plugin is assigned to an (dummy) instrument on that channel that is triggered when executing the Dry/Wet macro.

It sure might not be the most convenient way to do this, but at the moment it's all we've got.

ok well that means that the feature is unimplemented.
Listen can i get help on it? I just need someone who'd be willing to answer my questions and i'd work on it myself. I mean if no one is willing to do it I will try, I just need one person who's familiar with the code of the program to help guide me.

I'd say this feature would be rather difficult to implement if you have no experience with the OpenMPT code, but you are welcome to try.

Please consider the attached example file and see if toggling plugins like that is really too complicated for you.

I doubt that the feature as you suggest it (or at least how I understand it) would work very well, anyway: It appears that you want to allow any plugin to be inserted into a channel at any time. Please consider:

• If there is already a plugin chain on that channel, where in the chain would you insert the plugin? Plugin chains cannot point backwards, so if you already have plugin 1 point to plugin 3 and now you want to enable plugin 2 on that channel, it would have to be inserted after plugin 1. So the plugin chain would be 1->2->3. However, what happens now if plugin 2 points to plugin 4?


• What would you do if the plugin you want to enable on a channel is already part of a different plugin chain on another channel? As soon as you insert the plugin on another channel, you insert all the other channels (and the other plugin's output) on that channel as well. Good luck finding a solution for that that won't give you a headache.

If, on the other hand, you want a simply "bypass" toggle for every plugin, that is exactly what my attached exampel file does. I think it would be possible to implement a new bypass macro / effect that would always work - independent on which channel it is placed and no matter what plugins are assigned to that channel. I think something like that has even been requested before and it's certainly doable.

ok, i have an idea. I'll start calling this command θxx.

how about, when you call θxx on a channel and there is already a plugin there, you add it to the end of the chain only if it's value is greater than the last plugin on the chain. if it's less than or equal to the last plugin on the chain then you ignore the command all together. So plugin 1->3 on a channel and you type θ02, it does nothing. but if you type θ04 it links on plugin 4 to the chain 1->3->4, then if you type θ04 again afterwards, it removes plugin 4 and the chain is back to 1->3.

The same rule could be applied to instrument plugins, as long as the θxx command is a value of a plugin larger than the last plugin on the chain, it seems reasonable that you could add it to the end of the chain in that case as well.
I know then it would also make the functionality of θxx to be chaining on a plugin not in channel logic, but in instrument logic when typed on a channel with notes entered by an instrument with plugins after the command before it is called off.
But that would be very useful.

Also a keypoint here, i didn't forget, if you remove θ04 (by typing it a second time, while it's actually got other plugins after it, eg 1->3->4->5, you could just treat the situation as removing 5 first then 4.
So
θ04 θ04
... ...
... ...
θ05 = θ05
... ...
... ...
θ04 θ05
... θ04

As for that second problem, I'm sorry but I'm not sure i understand what a "plugin channel" is, if i'm getting the context here right i might assume that's what you had in the example file you uploaded. If that's the case then I admit that problem sounds confusing, but since the method of having an effect on one channel affect all channel outputs would not play nice with this functionality, we could just deal with it by ignoring the θxx command in the condition that you have a song using plugin channels at all.

I believe this endeavor is extremely worthwhile, as confusing as all of this could become I don't think it's not worth it. Please let me know of all the other conflicts this feature could create, i'm really serious about getting this to happen, thank you.

As for that second problem, I'm sorry but I'm not sure i understand what a "plugin channel" is

There are clearly too many "ifs" in that description for my taste. I guess that's also why you won't get any similar features in any other host (at least not that I'm aware of). Moving plugin chains around is not really not a simple thing and OpenMPT's current implementation of plugin chaining is already obscure in some points. You cannot simply say that plugin is part of one plugin chain on channel x but not part of the same plugin chain on channel y. And that's exactly what is going to confuse everyone, because once you remove a plugin from a chain, it will vanish on all channels that made use of that chain, and that way you can easily break those chains. For this idea to work, you'd have to be able to duplicate VST plugins on the fly, which is not really something what the VST SDK provides (you'd be really lucky if it worked).

Can you give a clear example where you could benefit from this mechanism and where using e.g. a bypass toggle would not solve your problem?

hmmm.

you're right. I'm kind of starting to lose enthusiasm over the idea now. Not because of whether or not it's doable, (cause I didn't mean double-instanced plugins, i meant that θxx would add to the plugin chain itself.)
i think i'm happy with the way i did it before, it's just that i just finished this really long song that i had worked on for 2 weeks, so that probably increased the desire for different functions, but i put myself on a deadline so it was more stressful, but now that i'm done i think i can get more used to the way i did it before with practice.

thanks for all the replies, keep up the good work!

Well, there's certainly always room for improvements, so if you have any good ideas that don't include too many "ifs" in the way they work, please let us know. :)