Please see the screenshot. If I draw line from 0 to 63 in 1.451247ms,... 

IMHO, vline~ should start with 0.

line~output:
0  0.9844  1.969  2.953  3.938  4.922  5.906  6.891  
7.875  8.859  9.844  10.83  11.81  12.8  13.78  14.77  
15.75  16.73  17.72  18.7  19.69  20.67  21.66  22.64  
23.62  24.61  25.59  26.58  27.56  28.55  29.53  30.52  
31.5  32.48  33.47  34.45  35.44  36.42  37.41  38.39  
39.38  40.36  41.34  42.33  43.31  44.3  45.28  46.27  
47.25  48.23  49.22  50.2  51.19  52.17  53.16  54.14  
55.12  56.11  57.09  58.08  59.06  60.05  61.03  62.02  

vline~output:
0.9844  1.969  2.953  3.938  4.922  5.906  6.891  7.875  
8.859  9.844  10.83  11.81  12.8  13.78  14.77  15.75  
16.73  17.72  18.7  19.69  20.67  21.66  22.64  23.63  
24.61  25.59  26.58  27.56  28.55  29.53  30.52  31.5  
32.48  33.47  34.45  35.44  36.42  37.41  38.39  39.38  
40.36  41.34  42.33  43.31  44.3  45.28  46.27  47.25  
48.23  49.22  50.2  51.19  52.17  53.16  54.14  55.13  
56.11  57.09  58.08  59.06  60.05  61.03  62.02  63

On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 10:32 AM, Alexandre Torres Porres <porres@gmail.com> wrote:
2016-05-14 13:53 GMT-03:00 Miller Puckette <msp@ucsd.edu>:
Note that the previous sample was 0

well, if you're not at "0", but somewhere else, and give it a "0,    64    1.451247" message, it goes to "1" and not "0"and the previous sample wasn't "0"


2016-05-14 17:39 GMT-03:00 Thomas Grill <gr@grrrr.org>:
Hi Miller,
If the time interval given amounts to let's say 64 samples, the target value is reached at sample index 63, that is, before the block boundary. To me that seems conceptually wrong.

i think you mean it should start with 0 and I agree
 
In fact, I found it so hard to work with vline~ (and line~) in a predictable and sample-accurate way that i resorted to biquad~ generated ramps in most of my patches.

how about rpole~ ?

cheers

_______________________________________________
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list