Hi Patco,
alberto.zin@poste.it a écrit :
The GUI itself was not hungry in terms of cpu load (the 46% you can see in the screenshot is just the 128 bp filters in parallel in the patch ;-)
puredata.info is too busy and doesn't respond, could you put your screenshot anywhere else?
find it in attachemnt (bad quality and large file, sorry).. Nothing extremely sophisticated/complicated but functional.
Using graph-of-parent is less complicated and more efficient.
yes, it is!
With adding toxy/widget, a pd interface could even blow a professional user interface, but it requires some skills in tcl scripting,
Well, depends on what you mean by "blowing". PD is self-consistent in this point (gui made with the same language used in patching), and this is probably an advantage. But we have examples of GUIS (the first that comes to my mind: tapestrea) that we probably will never see in PD (or at a price of a intensive re-working) because of its basic architectural choices. Which is not a bad point, I repeat.
or just *sarcastic mode* brain cells for figuring out how to use tcl-tk widgets for using the work made by ix and MiXed. *end of sarcastic mode*,
This may be true for some people but not for all. Some users do not want to dig into the programming machinery (even if Tcl-Tk *is* easy) because they are more "musically" oriented than programming-oriented. On the other side, selecting PD to make music (or whatever) already tell us that the user in some sense "loves programming algoritmically" and does not want only take sounds out-from-the-black-magic-box (who said VST's? Joking :).
All the best,
Alberto
salutations, Patco.
___________________________________________________________________________
Découvrez une nouvelle façon d'obtenir des réponses à toutes vos questions ! Profitez des connaissances, des opinions et des expériences des internautes sur Yahoo! Questions/Réponses http://fr.answers.yahoo.com
Alberto Zin
