Hi , i would like to use one gui to control diferent gem subpatches, one per time, for example i have 5 gem subpatches each one with a different gemhead but 4 of them are turned off, each one of these subpatches has a set of recievers from the gui, so with the gui i just control the values of the subpatch that is turned on, but the 5 of them are recieving the messages from the gui, Is this a good practice in terms of computacional consumption? Or if there is a difference if i separate the receivers from each subpatch and just have one set of receivers for all the 5 subpatches and just route the messages from the gui . Which is the best way of doing something like this?
i ask this because this 4 subpatches turned off are still consuming cpu(they are very big), 4% por each turned off subpatch, this isnt too much now, but im planning to add a lot of more subpatches , so this subpatches that doesnt do anything are gonna eat my cpu. Which is the best way of doing this? maybe i should use dynamic patching? do you think is a good option for what im trying to do?
any advice would be appreciated
thanks
pun.
Hallo, punchik punchik hat gesagt: // punchik punchik wrote:
Hi , i would like to use one gui to control diferent gem subpatches, one per time, for example i have 5 gem subpatches each one with a different gemhead but 4 of them are turned off, each one of these subpatches has a set of recievers from the gui, so with the gui i just control the values of the subpatch that is turned on, but the 5 of them are recieving the messages from the gui, Is this a good practice in terms of computacional consumption?
Or if there is a difference if i separate the receivers from each subpatch and just have one set of receivers for all the 5 subpatches and just route the messages from the gui . Which is the best way of doing something like this?
Personally I prefer to have only a limited number of receivers in my patches and then use [route $1] or so after that them filter out messages intended for a certain part of my patch. (I used the same approach in [sssad] where only two global receivers are used regardless of how many parameters are managed.) Also you could double the receiver with an [inlet] to have local control as well.
In your case you would then have a single place that you could block with a [spigot] at the same time that the gemhead is turned off.
Ciao
Frank
-
Frank Barknecht -
punchik punchik