Wow, I just compared your version of [pd digital message] with mine and
yours takes only 180ms to process 100 of messages, while mine uses
over 8s.
Frankly, I wouldn't have expected such a big difference Let me dig
into this.
Roman
On Fri, 2011-09-16 at 05:57 +0200, Ingo wrote:
The
On Fri, 2011-09-16 at 05:57 +0200, Ingo wrote:
The [change -1] is a great idea, I just committed that to bytemask.pd
and debytemask.pd. But the [pd resolve-bits_0-7] abstractions seem
quite labor-intensive, but they work. I think it would work better to
use multiple instances of
On Fri, 2011-09-16 at 11:32 +0200, Roman Haefeli wrote:
On Fri, 2011-09-16 at 05:57 +0200, Ingo wrote:
The [change -1] is a great idea, I just committed that to bytemask.pd
and debytemask.pd. But the [pd resolve-bits_0-7] abstractions seem
quite labor-intensive, but they work. I think
Wow, I just compared your version of [pd digital message] with mine and
yours takes only 180ms to process 100 of messages, while mine uses
over 8s.
Frankly, I wouldn't have expected such a big difference Let me dig
into this.
Roman
That's more than I would have expected, too!
I
Nachricht-
Von: Roman Haefeli [mailto:reduz...@gmail.com]
Gesendet: Freitag, 16. September 2011 11:32
An: Ingo
Cc: 'Hans-Christoph Steiner'; pd-list@iem.at
Betreff: Re: AW: AW: AW: [PD] pduino rewrite
On Fri, 2011-09-16 at 05:57 +0200, Ingo wrote:
The [change -1] is a great idea, I just
Steiner'; pd-list@iem.at
Betreff: Re: AW: AW: AW: AW: [PD] pduino rewrite
On Fri, 2011-09-16 at 14:05 +0200, Ingo wrote:
Wow, I just compared your version of [pd digital message] with mine
and
yours takes only 180ms to process 100 of messages, while mine uses
over 8s.
Frankly, I
Hi Ingo,
On 16/09/11 13:02, Ingo wrote:
When I started I thought it was very convenient to use wireless
[send/receive] objects to send midi data to the sample-voices (which it is).
[snip]
Sending 3,000 messages to 8,000 [receive] objects adds up to 24 million
times per second that the
Hi Claude,
When I started I thought it was very convenient to use wireless
[send/receive] objects to send midi data to the sample-voices (which it
is).
[snip]
Sending 3,000 messages to 8,000 [receive] objects adds up to 24 million
times per second that the individual [receive] objects
Nachricht-
Von: pd-list-boun...@iem.at [mailto:pd-list-boun...@iem.at] Im Auftrag von
Ingo
Gesendet: Freitag, 16. September 2011 16:42
An: 'Claude Heiland-Allen'; pd-list@iem.at
Betreff: Re: [PD] pduino rewrite
Hi Claude,
When I started I thought it was very convenient to use
[mailto:pd-list-boun...@iem.at] Im Auftrag von
Hans-Christoph Steiner
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 14. September 2011 22:33
An: Roman Haefeli
Cc: pd-list@iem.at
Betreff: Re: [PD] pduino rewrite
As Ingo pointed out, one bug is that [mapping/debytemask] has the
[change] object for each outlet. So
Nachricht-
Von: Roman Haefeli [mailto:reduz...@gmail.com]
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 15. September 2011 08:44
An: Ingo
Cc: 'Hans-Christoph Steiner'; pd-list@iem.at
Betreff: Re: AW: [PD] pduino rewrite
Hi Ingo
Thanks for testing!
On Thu, 2011-09-15 at 05:23 +0200, Ingo wrote:
Hi Roman
On Thu, 2011-09-15 at 09:44 +0200, Ingo wrote:
The reason why I didn't make an abstraction for the debyte is that I
wanted to keep the number of files and dependencies as low as possible. I
think this was the original idea of the rewrite, right?
Yeah, exactly. I would like to be able to
Interesting. How did you quantify the amount of message transfers? What
makes it differ so much, like you say?
I simply (roughly) counted the numbers of objects the calculation including
all sub processes have to pass until you get the final result.
(Unfortunately I cannot tell how heavy each
On Thu, 2011-09-15 at 10:01 +0200, Roman Haefeli wrote:
On Thu, 2011-09-15 at 09:44 +0200, Ingo wrote:
The reason why I didn't make an abstraction for the debyte is that I
wanted to keep the number of files and dependencies as low as possible. I
think this was the original idea of the
On Thu, 2011-09-15 at 10:20 +0200, Ingo wrote:
Interesting. How did you quantify the amount of message transfers? What
makes it differ so much, like you say?
I simply (roughly) counted the numbers of objects the calculation including
all sub processes have to pass until you get the final
On Thu, 2011-09-15 at 11:36 -0400, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
On Thu, 2011-09-15 at 10:01 +0200, Roman Haefeli wrote:
On Thu, 2011-09-15 at 09:44 +0200, Ingo wrote:
The reason why I didn't make an abstraction for the debyte is that I
wanted to keep the number of files and dependencies
working perfectly.
Ingo
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Hans-Christoph Steiner [mailto:h...@at.or.at]
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 15. September 2011 17:48
An: Ingo
Cc: 'Roman Haefeli'; pd-list@iem.at
Betreff: Re: AW: [PD] pduino rewrite
On Thu, 2011-09-15 at 10:20 +0200, Ingo wrote
On Thu, 2011-09-15 at 18:43 +0200, Roman Haefeli wrote:
On Thu, 2011-09-15 at 11:36 -0400, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
On Thu, 2011-09-15 at 10:01 +0200, Roman Haefeli wrote:
On Thu, 2011-09-15 at 09:44 +0200, Ingo wrote:
The reason why I didn't make an abstraction for the debyte is
]
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 15. September 2011 17:48
An: Ingo
Cc: 'Roman Haefeli'; pd-list@iem.at
Betreff: Re: AW: [PD] pduino rewrite
On Thu, 2011-09-15 at 10:20 +0200, Ingo wrote:
Interesting. How did you quantify the amount of message transfers?
What
makes it differ so much, like you
On Thu, 2011-09-15 at 13:29 -0400, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
On Thu, 2011-09-15 at 18:54 +0200, Ingo wrote:
Hi Hans,
unfortunately I am not really good at C or C++ so I have to stick with
simplifying within Pd until I get there. But I am actually working on it so
I'll be able to
The [change -1] is a great idea, I just committed that to bytemask.pd
and debytemask.pd. But the [pd resolve-bits_0-7] abstractions seem
quite labor-intensive, but they work. I think it would work better to
use multiple instances of [debytemask].
.hc
Not sure what you mean by
Hi Ingo
Thanks for all your reports.
Sorry that my replies sometimes only come a few days later. I'm still
willing to fix any outstanding issues, but not very often I find time to
get an arduino into my hands. Since sometimes I have troubles following
you and keeping your several bug reports
On Wed, 2011-09-14 at 11:48 +0200, Ingo wrote:
Hi Roman,
thanks for taking the time looking at the code. Unfortunately your version
will be sending even many more wrong numbers.
I have put some list messages into your patch. Keep clicking onto them
randomly and you will see that the
As Ingo pointed out, one bug is that [mapping/debytemask] has the
[change] object for each outlet. So probably the way to fix this is to
make a bunch of [mapping/debytemask] objects for all the possible
digital ports.
[arduino] should only output on change of digital input, and it receives
the
crazy now sending wrong stuff all over the place.
Ingo
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Hans-Christoph Steiner [mailto:h...@at.or.at]
Gesendet: Freitag, 9. September 2011 16:41
An: Ingo
Cc: 'Roman Haefeli'; 'pd-list'
Betreff: Re: [PD] pduino rewrite
I basically haven't used
Hi Roman, Olsen and Hans,
Here' a replacement object that fixes the behaviour that wrong digital in
pins get recognized when more than the first 6 pins are used. I hope there
is nothing else interfering with those pins anymore.
The object digital_messages inside the patch should be placed here
There is another thing that I just noticed about the pduino test-patch.
The mode buttons are suggesting that you can turn of all functions by
selecting NONE. This is not true! These buttons have absolutely NO
function and should be replaced with the correct commands.
While doing this the option
Hi Ingo
On Fri, 2011-09-09 at 05:47 +0200, Ingo wrote:
OK, I got it!
Downloading the files didn't work (at least not on my Windows computer) but
copying the content into a bunch of text files and renaming them did.
Hm.. is this probably due to Windows and Linux using different line
breaks
Hi Roman,
I just messed around with the rewrite and - as you mentioned - you didn't
fix any of the bugs.
I even think I send you a mail about the digital pins 2 3 and provided a
fix for it here at the forum. Of course it's still there!
About the other things:
- The test patch has still no
I forgot to mention: I tested with a Duemilanove.
Ingo
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: pd-list-boun...@iem.at [mailto:pd-list-boun...@iem.at] Im Auftrag von
Ingo
Gesendet: Freitag, 9. September 2011 10:04
An: 'Roman Haefeli'; 'olsen'; 'pd-list'
Betreff: Re: [PD] pduino rewrite
Hi
On Fri, 2011-09-09 at 10:03 +0200, Ingo wrote:
Hi Roman,
I just messed around with the rewrite and - as you mentioned - you didn't
fix any of the bugs.
I even think I send you a mail about the digital pins 2 3 and provided a
fix for it here at the forum. Of course it's still there!
Nachricht-
Von: Roman Haefeli [mailto:reduz...@gmail.com]
Gesendet: Freitag, 9. September 2011 10:49
An: Ingo
Cc: 'olsen'; 'pd-list'
Betreff: Re: AW: [PD] pduino rewrite
On Fri, 2011-09-09 at 10:03 +0200, Ingo wrote:
Hi Roman,
I just messed around with the rewrite and - as you mentioned
Nachricht-
Von: Roman Haefeli [mailto:reduz...@gmail.com]
Gesendet: Freitag, 9. September 2011 10:49
An: Ingo
Cc: 'olsen'; 'pd-list'
Betreff: Re: AW: [PD] pduino rewrite
On Fri, 2011-09-09 at 10:03 +0200, Ingo wrote:
Hi Roman,
I just messed around with the rewrite
I could not open any patch at all! Neither Natty nor Windows XP worked.
I am still on Pd-extended 0.42.5.
There is a huge list of stuff (not pd library related) missing.
So far this doesn't look like it's improving any dependency problem.
Ingo
buenas tutti
roman me did some rewrite on the
are gone.
Ingo
Betreff: Re: [PD] pduino rewrite
I could not open any patch at all! Neither Natty nor Windows XP worked.
I am still on Pd-extended 0.42.5.
There is a huge list of stuff (not pd library related) missing.
So far this doesn't look like it's improving any dependency problem.
Ingo
buenas tutti
roman me did some rewrite on the pduino - citing the README:
Pduino - improved
-
All Pd patches are based on the official Pduino (version 0.5beta8)
maintained by Hans-Christoph Steiner.
The goals of the improvements are:
* Get rid of avoidable dependencies on
This is a great start, it needed some loving. I'll check it out when I
have some time.
.hc
On Fri, 2011-09-02 at 12:20 +0200, olsen wrote:
buenas tutti
roman me did some rewrite on the pduino - citing the README:
Pduino - improved
-
All Pd patches are based on the
37 matches
Mail list logo
