ty much for explaining all that! really appreciate it and it’s helping me better come to terms w the limitations/best practices for this whole 6x template.
personal take: i think it’s good w it’s current behavior, gives more freedom? although w that comes responsibility/ the possibility to run into the issue im hitting but im realizing now, that really just need to wait a bit after running, let the ram fill up.
im finding that the screen timeout could maybe be a useful indicator? i need to do more real world tests with that idea though
2 cents: maybe more granularity might not be a bad thing here?
i wonder if there’s any way to grant buffering precedence to tsps that are first played after the patch is run? so after hitting run, then hitting play on say tsp 1, the others would then buffer slower and allow tsp 1 to buffer faster/not underflow. or making the first tsp in the patch load fastest, 2nd tsp (but module id#?) load a little less fast to allow tsp 1 to load more etcetc? maybe all that’s not possible/too complex (or maybe only doable in a single 6x tsp type module), or too risky or edge case.
i have 2 on order. and that’s awesome and great to hear that the load times are sped up quite bit with those! i’m hoping they’ll get in soon so i can start experimenting with them.

