Hallo, martin brinkmann hat gesagt: // martin brinkmann wrote:
(The subpatches could profit from an interior decorator, though. ;)
i agree that my patches look pretty messy. though this is mainly because i am lazy ;), but i also try to avoid a 'misleading layout', where the objects are all aligned orthogonally, and it is sometimes hard to tell wether the left or right inlet is connected for example.
using more subpatches/abstractions would probably help...
I don't have a real problem with your patch and I think they are amazing.
They really could profit from abstractions however. You have a lot of duplicated functionality (sequencers, synths) that would be useful to have in single files for better reusability. However then you should also protect all senders and receivers with $0 and make them local to the abstraction, so that you don't "overwrite" receivers already in use outside of your abstractions.
Regarding cleaning up patches: The goal of cleaning up should be readability IMO, not just "nice looks", so yes, avoiding misleading connections running on top of each other should be a priority. I collected some simple "rules" (meant to be broken of course) on the Tips and Tricks wiki page:
http://puredata.info/docs/tutorials/TipsAndTricks#keep-your-patches-nice-cle... (one line)
It includes two screenshots of a patch before and after the diet.
It also occured to me that you are doing all the sequencing using audio signals. While this allows a very tight timing and is common practice among Max users, I don't think it is strictly necessary in Pd. A simple [metro] and [vline~] will be just as tight as using a [phasor~] for sequencing - also because [metro] and [vline~] can be used as an equivalent replacement for [phasor~] even with subsample timing accuracy.
In the long run you could save quite some CPU cycles by using the more traditional clock-based sequencing where possible.
Ciao
Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org_ __goto10.org__