So, then use [randomF], put the values into an list/array and shuffle that. It would still be not fully random, because the numbers won't be bigger than 10, but still it would be quite random :)
On 04.03.2011 04:01, Caio Barros wrote: > You could try this approach(I also attached a patch with it): > 48 = 4 * 10 + 1 * 8 > so you use > n1=random(10) > n2 = 10 - n1 > n3 = random(10) > n4 = 10-n3 > . > . > n9 = random(8) > n10 = 8 - n9 > > > But this makes the odd-ordered chords to start at every 10 seconds. I > believe that Caio wants something more random than that. > > > Yes that's right. And another problem is that all the durations are integers. > I > want something without the feeling of (regular) pulsations. > > > > BTW I have another idea : > > initialise all of them to equal or almost equal amounts, then modify the > delays gradully : pick a donor randomly among delays that aren't already > minimum ; pick a acceptor randomly among delays that aren't already > maximum ; give one unit of delay from the donor to the acceptor. > > > I was trying to figure out something like that. Now that I think about it, is > more important to have a minimum duration than a maximum because depending on > the minimum I chose, the probability of a chord too long is low (and bottom > line > I can always change the result to fit in what I want to hear). > > I'll need to experiment a bit. If I have the time to make a cool patch with > general paramethers I'll share with the list. Unfortunately today I could not > compose. > > Caio Barros _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
