hi,
i'm looking for the best way to use netsend / netreceiving between 2 instances of pd (1 with -nogui) running on the same computer.
someone mentioned a way on linux to use the unix socket with netsend / netreceiving. i didn't find any information on the mailing list archive (http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-list/) or in the help file of [netsend]
someone could ask why i need to run 2 instances of pd on the same computer? last time it was for gem (-noaudio) + audio (-rt). this time, it's because of [comport] adding glitches to a simple [osc~ 444] - [dac~].
any advice greatly appreciated! pat
patrick wrote:
hi,
i'm looking for the best way to use netsend / netreceiving between 2 instances of pd (1 with -nogui) running on the same computer.
someone mentioned a way on linux to use the unix socket with netsend / netreceiving. i didn't find any information on the mailing list archive (http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-list/) or in the help file of [netsend]
Actually I think only dumpOSC can handle unix sockets (AF_UNIX instead of AF_INET).
Martin
someone could ask why i need to run 2 instances of pd on the same computer? last time it was for gem (-noaudio) + audio (-rt). this time, it's because of [comport] adding glitches to a simple [osc~ 444] - [dac~].
any advice greatly appreciated! pat
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
patrick wrote:
hi,
i'm looking for the best way to use netsend / netreceiving between 2 instances of pd (1 with -nogui) running on the same computer.
just stick [netsend] into one instance and [netreceive] into the other instance :-)
seriously, what is the problem that cannot be solved with "just" the objects?
someone could ask why i need to run 2 instances of pd on the same computer?
i would never dare to ask this, as i do it all the time (with heavy "fixed" applications)
you just have to collect all the messages at a one point (at the sending side); for this, the use of [inlet]/[outlet]s might be fit better than [send]/[receive] (otoh, i usually use the [s]/[r] approach for ease of patching, but there i write my own [mysend] which (additionally) does the bundling of the messages.
mfg.asdr IOhannes
Hallo, IOhannes m zmoelnig hat gesagt: // IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
you just have to collect all the messages at a one point (at the sending side); for this, the use of [inlet]/[outlet]s might be fit better than [send]/[receive] (otoh, i usually use the [s]/[r] approach for ease of patching, but there i write my own [mysend] which (additionally) does the bundling of the messages.
Or just use [sssad] and listen to the [r SSSAD] receiver.
Ciao
Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org_ __goto10.org__
In my own experience netsend/netreceive works very well even with a constant stream of data.
Tom
On 7/4/07, IOhannes m zmoelnig zmoelnig@iem.at wrote:
patrick wrote:
hi,
i'm looking for the best way to use netsend / netreceiving between 2 instances of pd (1 with -nogui) running on the same computer.
just stick [netsend] into one instance and [netreceive] into the other instance :-)
seriously, what is the problem that cannot be solved with "just" the objects?
someone could ask why i need to run 2 instances of pd on the same computer?
i would never dare to ask this, as i do it all the time (with heavy "fixed" applications)
you just have to collect all the messages at a one point (at the sending side); for this, the use of [inlet]/[outlet]s might be fit better than [send]/[receive] (otoh, i usually use the [s]/[r] approach for ease of patching, but there i write my own [mysend] which (additionally) does the bundling of the messages.
mfg.asdr IOhannes
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
-
Frank Barknecht -
IOhannes m zmoelnig -
Martin Peach -
patrick -
Thomas O Fredericks