On Jul 12, 2007, at 5:31 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote: >>> Martin Peach wrote: >>>> IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote: >>> >>> OK, I changed packOSC to output negative delays and it's now > > Oops, that should say unpackOSC... > >>> obvious, even on the same machine a "current" time tag always has a >>> slight negative delay, whereas an "immediate" time tag is always >>> exactly zero. >>> That leaves the slight problem of a "future" message that arrives >>> exactly on time... >>> Martin >> >> Wow, nice work! That sounds like it'll be quite easy to use timetags >> now. Is there anyway to generate timetags with Pd yet? > > Well, packOSC does that when you open a bundle, you can also > specify an offset. Is there a need for actual raw timetags? > I started an external to generate them as a list of four floats (64 > bits split into four 16-bit numbers). Then I realized it's easier > to use millisecond delays since that's what pd is using, so > unpackOSC just converts the received time tag into a millisecond > delay relative to the current time. This could be altered easily by > adding a constant at the outlet.
This sounds perfect actually, as long as you can set an time offset for sending messages. .hc > > Martin > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---- Looking at things from a more basic level, you can come up with a more direct solution... It may sound small in theory, but it in practice, it can change entire economies. - Amy Smith _______________________________________________ PD-dev mailing list PD-dev@iem.at http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
