Track Inspector reports multi tracks by mistake (CWBRN-22934)

Yes, I'm seeing that too Alex, but only with SIT's
 
As soon as you split them, the word 'Multi' disappears

Sounds about right Joseph..
I wouldn't say correctly displaying though because you can't see the selection, and as a synth track I would expect the synth track to be treated as a single entity.
Thanks for confirming Colin.
Reported under (CWBRN-22934)
 
 

Bristol_Jonesey
I bet it comes back as "intended behaviour"

That's how some developers try to avoid fixing usability issues sadly, as long as there is some sort of logic however flawed it's a "won't fix". Again I would say this is far from expected behaviour but I could imagine the triage arguments going on around this as though invisible tracks are selected by design :)

I can totally see why some people would want differently named tracks... however...
 
In order to be able to select a soft synth as a single track straight away I have to right click, split instrument track, rename a track, select both tracks, then right click and merge them.
 
And if I decided to change the name again I would have to go through the same process.
 
>  I like to be able to name them differently.
 
If they were named exactly the same by default you could still rename them so that would not take away the facility.
 
I'm just not sure why the soft synth track and the MIDI track should have different names by default. And in my opinion soft synth tracks should be treated like single tracks until they are split (I thought that was the whole idea of a soft synth track).

brundlefly
You can enter the one name you want in the Inspector where it says (multi) without having to split the track.

That's even weirder, I type into track name (where is said Multi) some text, press enter and it still says (Multi), do it a second time and then both tracks are named. Whilst I can see it is renaming one track followed by another it's again hardly intuitive to type something in, press return and then you don't see what you typed in and you don't know which track has been renamed, but yes it's definitely quicker.
 
My view is that if you rename in track name it should rename both tracks straight away. In addition we should have two separate fields (for each of the two tracks), so tracks can be quickly named on an individual basis.
 
UPDATE (In fact it would be better if it could handle multiple values like Visual Studio does say for an array type with fixed values under the Property IDE).

Agreed not a massive issue, but the whole way soft synths behave when manipulating it's properties feels half baked overall. Not a great user experience.

I give it 75% baked then if we are going into more detail here. Basic features like renaming and ability to select without fiddling around (as fully explained here) are a must, not a "nice to have" from my own perspective. It's not majorly broken though if you put your logic goggles (rather than your reality specs) on so that's the main thing.