Hey all
I found that a 'stop' message to [line] doesn't make it store the current position. A subsequent '<target> <time>' message starts from the last targeted position instead of the position when the 'stop' message occurred.
Is this an intended design?
See attached patch that tries to illustrate the behavior.
Roman
On Mon, 2017-01-09 at 17:59 -0200, Alexandre Torres Porres wrote:
Is this an intended design?
I think so
This seems odd to me. Once you hit 'stop', there is no way to avoid a jump. The point of using a ramp generator is exactly to avoid jumps. I only noticed now that [line~ ] continues from the stopped position.
I now think this is a bug.
Roman
I can't understand what is wrong... if you 'stop' a line~ and then later give it a new target, it ramps form the position it had stoped at. I think this is the most reasonable behavior. Or is it doing something different somehow?
thanks Miller
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 09:41:27PM +0100, Roman Haefeli wrote:
On Mon, 2017-01-09 at 17:59 -0200, Alexandre Torres Porres wrote:
Is this an intended design?
I think soÂ
This seems odd to me. Once you hit 'stop', there is no way to avoid a jump. The point of using a ramp generator is exactly to avoid jumps. I only noticed now that [line~ ] continues from the stopped position.
I now think this is a bug.
Roman
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
On 2017-01-15 22:58, Miller Puckette wrote:
I can't understand what is wrong... if you 'stop' a line~ and then later give it a new target, it ramps form the position it had stoped at. I think this is the most reasonable behavior. Or is it doing something different somehow?
it starts from the original position, rather than the current one.
that is: if i stop a [0, 1 1000( after 999ms, the current position is something like 0.999. however, if i then send it a [0 1000( i will start from 0 (does effectively not doing anything, as it ramps from 0 to 0)!
i would have expected it to start from 0.999 (or somewhere close to) and ramp down.
fgasdmr IOhannes
On Mon, 2017-01-16 at 09:46 +0100, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
On 2017-01-15 22:58, Miller Puckette wrote:
I can't understand what is wrong... if you 'stop' a line~ and then later give it a new target, it ramps form the position it had stoped at. I think this is the most reasonable behavior. Or is it doing something different somehow?
Before I create more confusion, let's focus on the ~ . I suspect [line] to be buggy, not [line~]. I only mentioned [line~] as a reference and since [line~] is doing what we agree it should do, I believe the behavior of [line] is buggy.
it starts from the original position, rather than the current one.
that is: if i stop a [0, 1 1000( after 999ms, the current position is something like 0.999. however, if i then send it a [0 1000( i will start from 0 (does effectively not doing anything, as it ramps from 0 to 0)!
i would have expected it to start from 0.999 (or somewhere close to) and ramp down.
Yes, that is the current behavior with [line]. I guess Miller was looking at [line~].
I'm sorry for not having been more clear in my second mail.
Roman
-
Alexandre Torres Porres -
IOhannes m zmoelnig -
Miller Puckette -
Roman Haefeli