Erik Hofman wrote:
Julian Foad wrote:
No. I am only suggesting changing the default value for the pitch
offset, not the way it is used to calculate pitch which is and would
still be
...
Hmm, okay. If you are sure it works, then I see no objections. It may
require a few changes in the
Julian Foad wrote:
No. I am only suggesting changing the default value for the pitch
offset, not the way it is used to calculate pitch which is and would
still be
pitch = (property * factor) + offset
Therefore with my proposed change your first example would have to be
changed to
pitch
Julian Foad wrote:
Erik Hofman wrote:
Julian Foad wrote:
...
Anomalies:
1. The pitch offset defaults to 1, but I think that is just a bug.
2. Since the offsets are constant, it is redundant to specify more
than one. This arrangement is therefore not ideal, but I'm not sure
what would be
Andy Ross wrote:
If you guys are thinking of changing the way we do linear function of
a property value definitions in configurations, let me argue for a
slightly different way to do it:
The problem with specifying a multiplier (e.g. scaling or
rotation) and an offset is that these two
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Erik Hofman wrote:
Julian Foad wrote:
Not totally different. Quite similar. Have you looked at the code? The
I've written the code.
Oh! ... sorry. I'll be very careful then.
:-)
You can always override the default offset, but defaults should have a
sane
Julian Foad wrote:
...
Anomalies:
1. The pitch offset defaults to 1, but I think that is just a bug.
2. Since the offsets are constant, it is redundant to specify more than one. This arrangement is therefore not ideal, but I'm not sure what would be best.
3. A negative scaling factor is only
Erik Hofman wrote:
Julian Foad wrote:
...
Anomalies:
1. The pitch offset defaults to 1, but I think that is just a bug.
2. Since the offsets are constant, it is redundant to specify more
than one. This arrangement is therefore not ideal, but I'm not sure
what would be best.
3. A negative
Julian Foad wrote:
Hey, it's slightly different! How about we scrap the differences
and the anomalies and combine them? To do so, I'd suggest:
If you guys are thinking of changing the way we do linear function of
a property value definitions in configurations, let me argue for a
slightly
