Hello,
Of course, you can steal it.
I agree with the trigger thing (and i also had fun with your patch !), and Cyrille made corrections. I send it back with the amplitude correction.
Have fun!
François.
Hallo, frablanc hat gesagt: // frablanc wrote:
Finally, i solved the problem in a quite empiric way, but it seems to work ... I agree, it deserves a lot of cleaning, i put a lot of [bang] to be shure that the coefficients are
right...
I send the final abstraction, and a patch which uses it. It's quite fun and i think it sounds great ! ;-)
Yes, it sound really wonderful I like it a lot (so much I'll
steal it,
if you don't mind ;)
Only with the execution order you still didn't get it right.
it might
work now, but as soon as you do some further editing it
*will* break.
Better fix it now. The [bang] objects don't help at all, let me explain why: Every "connection fanning" in your patch still
has an
undefined order. If two or more connections come out of a
message
outlet, you cannot tell which one will fire first. If order is important, and it practically *always* is, then you must use
a trigger
object instead of connection fanning.
So you should generally avoid more than one connection
coming out of a
single message outlet. It's trouble waiting to happen, you
don't want
to marry such patches.
Attached patch shows some of the things that can go wrong with connection fanning.
Ciao
Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org_
__goto10.org__
Accédez au courrier électronique de La Poste : www.laposte.net ; 3615 LAPOSTENET (0,34 /mn) ; tél : 08 92 68 13 50 (0,34/mn)
-
frablanc