I can dig it, and I’m hopeful.
It just doesn’t make sense that the MS is where it reimerged. Like, for the feature to be omitted from A4 -> present, I had a sort of understanding about why it’s not included. The Octatrack, you’re dealing with larger potentially more intricate sound sources, so that seperation of time and other tracks made more sense.
Dude! Same!
Maybe it’s not as easy to implement, but doable on the new machine for whatever reason?
I think this fosters a double standard.
Where criticism exists that the M:S doesn’t do enough, that it is too stripped down… But where it does something that is truly powerful, the criticism is put toward why that something it still excluded elsewhere.
This is not to say that the criticism isn’t warranted. In fact, it’s user demand that gives us so many features. But the hyperbole of it all? I don’t see the point.
As a budget outreach it makes sense.
As a portable device it makes sense.
That it includes a feature not implemented on the DT or AR doesn’t make sense.
I really think the irritation comes from confusion
I’d accept that for the A4, given it’s different protocol. But for the Digis, it would take an element of faith before I’d be able to accept that
Theres digi stuff in the a4 (seq code)…im sure some code could be injected to liven it up 
DOCTOR!?
I hope so! Sure, I can sequence the longer patterns on my OT, but it’s more fun to sequence locally.
Save my OT midi tracks for midi mapping the song Banks and p-locked arps
Edit: once A4 and DT get track scaling, then all 16 power tracks can go to VSTs and MD crazy rhythmic nonsense 
sigh — I’ll guess go ahead and add a serious two cents, as I don’t believe I’ve seen this particular framing presented:
Unless I’m mistaken, the A4 came at about the same price as the OT without conditional trigs. The AR then came at a higher price than either of them with conditional trigs. Then the A4 got conditional trigs (1.22) but not the OT.
Now, I’m not excusing the delay in bringing conditional trigs to the OT (I honestly have no clue what all was involved in making that happen), but I do question the decision to arbitrarily (without explanation) bring something I’ve been ardently requesting for years to a device at a third the cost of what I paid, etc.
To be clear. I’m not seriously offended. This hasn’t stopped me from making gratifying (at least to myself) music, but it is something I find confounding at present.
There was a recent comment about coding new features somewhere. Something to the effect of, “If RYTM can do X, then just add some code so it can sequence external gear” It sent me down this rabbit hole of thinking. There’s so many things at play in these devices, i imagine people over simplify it when thinking features can be implemented.
Granted, the way multiple lengths per track is implemented on the OT, seems like it could be implemented on others in a very similar way.
You are mistaken.
Both the AR and A4 MK1s got conditional trigs in concurrent OS updates.
AR OS 1.22
A4 OS 1.22
Three years ago.
My apologies. I was mistaken, indeed.
no over simplification. merely said that there are computers in the the A4 as well…for like the sequencer. SO with that…its not outside of the realm of possibility that something could be added.
providing there is space, time, similar procs and available functions [as the foundation for all the seqs is most likely similar [it may be possible]].
NEVER did I suggested that it would be something trivial or something they’d even want to do.
AHA.
No clue why it only just came back to me, as I know I’ve thought of this before:
Direct change. I can see how this would cause issues with implementing independent rate scaling, and if I were given the choice between the two, I would absolutely choose to keep direct change.
We are all good. 
What logic are you seeing where independent track scaling might interfere with direct change?
Sorry for the delay. I’m currently battling with why my intuition has lead me to believe that independent track lengths don’t upset relations in phase, but independent rates would. Hmm.
I swear, I feel as though it’s been on the tip of my tongue for the past 10 minutes, but hasn’t been forth coming.
All good 
Alright. I think this is gonna be it for tonight - this was a devil of a question (for whatever reason):
The way I’d imagine legato switches (direct changes) are achieved is by a processor calculating (looking at) all patterns simultaneously and soloing (for lack of a better term) whichever is selected.
As I can’t say why I imagine differing independent (non-global) rates being calculated simultaneously would be impossible, I’ll simply say I can see where it would vastly complicate things.
Apologies if none of this is at all coherent.
As far as I see it the re-introduction of an “old” feature needs to be done somewhere and since they were working on the to-be-released-soon device they started there. Seems logical to me.
Additionally: With the OB2 development still ongoing the OSes of the older devices are still a moving target. Introducing new features while still working on another large (feature like Overbridge mode) is much more error-prone, so it make sense to do it not in parallel, but one after the other. Since the new device doesn’t support Overbridge mode it make sense to re-introduce it there. Again: seems logical to me (as I’m a software developer myself).
When looking around almost no company provides useful updates to their devices. Most companies don’t even provide bugfixes, but want you to buy their next model to get stuff fixed.
That’s the sad reality we live in. Am I happy with this? No, but I vote with my wallet.
It doesn’t matter how long a feature already got requested for a device. When it’s not there in the beginning (and wasn’t promised like OB2), then that’s what you have bought. There is no type of entitlement for anything. You can ask for it and it may be given to you, but all of this takes time and then it’s still a freebie of the company doing so.