I always use [clone] when I need several instances of an abstraction. Dynamic patching is a hack and shouldn't be used anymore for this purpose.
> one feature badly missing is the possibility ta allocate dynamic "voice" > (or "instance") numbers (i.e. how many instances of an abstraction are > created). That would be useful and it's actually on my to-do-list :-). But usually I just allocate the max. number of instances I need and simply "disable" instances I don't need. I think this is generally the better approach for cloned DSP objects (using [switch~], because dynamically changing the number of voices wouldn't be realtime safe anyway... Christof > Gesendet: Samstag, 18. Januar 2020 um 16:46 Uhr > Von: "oliver" <[email protected]> > An: Pd-List <[email protected]> > Betreff: Re: [PD] clone vs. dynamic patching > > João Pais wrote: > > Hello list, > > > > I didn't try clone yet, I always worked with dynamic patching for > > similar issues. For those who are knowledgeable, I would like to ask: is > > there any advantage of clone against dynamic patching when using the > > same circuit, or is it the same? > > This pertains to patches working on both control and signal input/output. > > > > if you are familiar with MAX: > > [clone] is nearly the same as [poly~] > > one feature badly missing is the possibility ta allocate dynamic "voice" > (or "instance") numbers (i.e. how many instances of an abstraction are > created). i hope miller has plans to implement this in the future. > > right now, all you can do is a combination of using [clone] and dynamic > patching if you want to change the number of instances on the fly > (destroy the old clone object and re-create it with new arguments with > PD messages). > > i used [clone] on several occasions and find it extremely useful, as you > can directly edit the original source and see the results (as opposed to > MAX). > > i would say the best use case is a situation, where you need let's say > 10 or more copies of a patch (i.e. for parameter organisation, > oscillator banks etc...). basically it's the same as creating multiple > abstractions where you do the message routing internally with a creation > argument > > [abs 1] > [abs 2] > [abs 3] > [abs 4] etc... > > so, no - there's no direct ADVANTAGE over dynamic patching but in > general i think it's the better and clearer concept > > best > > oliver > > > > _______________________________________________ > [email protected] mailing list > UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> > https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list > _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
