I always use [clone] when I need several instances of an abstraction. Dynamic patching is a hack and shouldn't be used anymore for this purpose.
Is there a way to make other kinds of structures inside [clone] though?
Two abstractions a and b for example, with the output of a connected to b and b connected to [clone]s outlet,
rather than having parallel copies of one abstraction...?
> one feature badly missing is the possibility ta allocate dynamic "voice"
> (or "instance") numbers (i.e. how many instances of an abstraction are
> created).
That would be useful and it's actually on my to-do-list :-). But usually I just allocate the max. number of instances I need and simply "disable" instances I don't need. I think this is generally the better approach for cloned DSP objects (using [switch~], because dynamically changing the number of voices wouldn't be realtime safe anyway...
Christof
> Gesendet: Samstag, 18. Januar 2020 um 16:46 Uhr
> Von: "oliver" <oliver@klingt.org>
> An: Pd-List <pd-list@lists.iem.at>
> Betreff: Re: [PD] clone vs. dynamic patching
>
> João Pais wrote:
> > Hello list,
> >
> > I didn't try clone yet, I always worked with dynamic patching for
> > similar issues. For those who are knowledgeable, I would like to ask: is
> > there any advantage of clone against dynamic patching when using the
> > same circuit, or is it the same?
> > This pertains to patches working on both control and signal input/output.
> >
>
> if you are familiar with MAX:
>
> [clone] is nearly the same as [poly~]
>
> one feature badly missing is the possibility ta allocate dynamic "voice"
> (or "instance") numbers (i.e. how many instances of an abstraction are
> created). i hope miller has plans to implement this in the future.
>
> right now, all you can do is a combination of using [clone] and dynamic
> patching if you want to change the number of instances on the fly
> (destroy the old clone object and re-create it with new arguments with
> PD messages).
>
> i used [clone] on several occasions and find it extremely useful, as you
> can directly edit the original source and see the results (as opposed to
> MAX).
>
> i would say the best use case is a situation, where you need let's say
> 10 or more copies of a patch (i.e. for parameter organisation,
> oscillator banks etc...). basically it's the same as creating multiple
> abstractions where you do the message routing internally with a creation
> argument
>
> [abs 1]
> [abs 2]
> [abs 3]
> [abs 4] etc...
>
> so, no - there's no direct ADVANTAGE over dynamic patching but in
> general i think it's the better and clearer concept
>
> best
>
> oliver
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list
> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
>
_______________________________________________
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list