Op za 18 jan. 2020 om 18:03 schreef Christof Ressi <[email protected]>:
> 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. > > Is there a way to make other kinds of structures inside [clone] though? Two abstractions a and b for example, with the output of a connected to b and b connected to [clone]s outlet, rather than having parallel copies of one abstraction...? > 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 >
_______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
