Great-great!
Andy Farnell a écrit :
That's good. A solo or featured instrument might use an expensive physical model, but cheaper methods for the backing instruments. Maybe some kind of namespace could be started now [orc-flute], [orc-cello] and so on. A coherent performance interface would be a great start, something simple akin to MIDI {/ducks}
I agree with the namespace, simple and clear. I also think that midi notes combined with a few continuous parameters should be sufficient.
Actually the structure isn't as important as the flexibility and documentation. One should be able to query an instrument with a [help( message and get a print out like
/string/position/ /string/unitweight/ /bow/pressure/
all with normalised scales in OSC style so you know what is addressable
Definitely.
Keep the same general interface and every time someone makes a nice instrument they can put it in the next available namespace slot like [orc-trombone-22], [orc-trombone-23]...
In order to handle the desired quality, I see two possibilities:
- a creation argument that should be 0: "simple"-model and 1: "complex"
model.
- a OSC style message [/quality 1(
In both case, the simpler model should be the default one, and when somenone wants something more precise, he asks for it.
I can handle the [orc-flute-1] object. A month or two for the simple release...
+n