"Reference" Cue (copy)

In a cuelist, the ability to copy a cue as a reference to the original cue would be fantastic.

Currently when you copy a cue as a new cue in a cuelist, that new cue is it’s own separate cue. So if you made several copies of a cue throughout your cuelist and you later want to make an update to that cue everywhere that it exists (the original and all the copies), then you have to make the update multiple times - in the original cue and all the copies. (Sure you can use ‘Load’ or other techniques to make that process easier, but you still have to update each cue separately.)

Making a copy of a cue as a “reference” cue would instead create a cue that is essentially linked to the original cue. With a “reference” cue, when you needed to update the cue everywhere it exists (the original and all copies) you would only have to update the original cue. All the references would inherently/automatically have the change as well, since their all just a reference to the same cue data. (Or, even better, allow the update to be made on any instance of the cue - the original cue or any of the reference cues.)

This would be a great time saver for me. It would also improve ease of use for my novice volunteer operators, when they need to modify a cuelist or are building new ones.

Its a good idea, but it has a lot of implications on tracking behavior. It creates a lot of if/then questions etc.
A good workaround I use is to create a Preset with all parameters inside. So the cue contains only one single preset that contains all fixtures and parameters and even parameter timing and FX.
Update that preset instead of the cue and you get the same result, and you can do cue by cue adjustments to specific fixtures as needed.

Take a look at preset. It is made for such purpose :slight_smile:

Sure. I understand this idea can be accomplished with presets (and maybe other ways - maybe using macros in some way). That is certainly a viable workaround to accomplish this. But it is a slightly more complicated and somewhat less intuitive method, in my opinion. As opposed to just simply copying a cue (but as a reference).

This is a slightly different concept from what you’d normally/intuitively use or think of a preset for, because the “reference” is only relevant - and only makes sense to use - within the context of its cuelist. You would have no use of this as a “preset” outside of its cuelist. And, in fact, you’d probably even want to avoid using this “preset” anywhere else, lest you decide to change it when seeing it in some other context (forgetting about its primary use as a “reference” in some cuelist) and that change is completely wrong for the original cuelist where you are using it as a “reference” cue.

I agree the “reference” cue idea does have things to think about in relation to tracking, etc. But so does the regular cue copy. In fact the default of a reference cue copy could behave just the same as a regular cue copy - it references only what’s recorded in the original cue itself. So it behaves just as if you did a regular cue copy, other than when you go to modify it. And (thinking as I type)… if you had a check box to “break” the “reference”, then that new cue would be EXACTLY as if you did the regular cue copy. (Just a thought.)

(I always hate to reference specific features in other consoles, but…) Vista does something similar to this idea that they’ve implemented very well, with their “alias” cue. It is very quick and easy to use, and I’ve found that novices find it very straightforward and intuitive to understand.

(It’s one of two features that I love about Vista - the other being “Update Selection” for their effects, which allows you to take an effect, one that you are currently building or one that you have previously built, and apply it across a different selection of fixtures from what it was originally built with. Both are extremely useful features for us.)

Anyway, this is just a idea/suggestion for a new feature - which would be very helpful to me, and I think others as well - that I thought I’d throw out there for Obsidian to at least think about and consider. Maybe it spurs an even better idea from them that accomplishes the same thing in a better way. (Thanks for at least taking a look at and thinking about the idea @Matthias.)