Didn't really know cyclone went back to Max 4 era, I had Max 5 all along to check the "original" features. So I have also Max 6 and Max 7, which makes me think that checking Max 4 might be too much. But I may try getting that.

Thing is that I've been comparing to Max 7, and I think it makes more sense to do that. Not that the goal is to get to a clone of Max 7 (or 8/9 for that matter), it's just a matter of the purpose of the whole thing. I was asking this on another thread and maybe we should rush to it once and for all. Do you feel like Cyclone should be a clone of Max 4.6, and stop there?

Well, Max 7 respects backwards compatibility to earlier patches, right? So I'm checking it and I assume Max's latest version must have cool new features added to some objects that we could also enjoy, respecting backwards compatibility of course.

I can map what's been added to Max and not to Pd yet. Actually, I've already started doing this. I'll just organize it and share it.

I could also say that I've went through all of Max's audio objects trying to find the most relevant ones that would be missing and didn't find so much of them. We already have a great package.

I think it's better to elect the best missing features/objects as candidates for clones, with good sense.

Quite a few objects will just not be possible under the Pd paradigm, so we may just forget about that, instead of bothering in making Pd a clone of Max. I don't think that is a main purpose.

As I said before, the main purpose of cyclone, in my opinion, should consist in being a nice collection of externals that have the same functionality as objects in Max that are missing in Pd Vanilla. This is a good point because: 1- Vanilla is a small package. 2- Max has some stuff there we could copy and clone.

The idea would not be to clone Mas then. Going through Max's objects and cloning them seems like a good starting point for a nice package of externals, that's all. 

As a consequence, we gain the ability of having patches, or patching sections that are virtually the same on both systems. This is good for people who, for any reason, use both systems. Or for people who are migrating from one system to another. But I don't believe that should be the main concern, only a nice consequence. I actually like this a lot, as it allows me to teach both systems at once! Keeping in mind basic structural differences.

But anyway, I'm confused as to what is your idea behind it, or the general idea in the community of cyclone users. Let us talk about it then.

This also touches the issue with [average~], as there was a resistance to make it a proper clone of the Max object as a priority. You were making remarks such as: