Hi all,
Does anyone know of a later implementation of OSC for Pd, besides Martin Peach's 2006?
best,
J
Jaime Oliver wrote:
Hi all,
Does anyone know of a later implementation of OSC for Pd, besides Martin Peach's 2006?
Some changes since then: http://pure-data.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/pure-data/trunk/externals/mrpeac...
Martin
great thanks!
I'll check them out,
J
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 8:15 PM, Martin Peach martin.peach@sympatico.ca wrote:
Jaime Oliver wrote:
Hi all,
Does anyone know of a later implementation of OSC for Pd, besides Martin Peach's 2006?
Some changes since then: http://pure-data.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/pure-data/trunk/externals/mrpeac...
Martin
Hi,
is there any clear place which describes the advantages of this package
with the old osc objects? I still use the old ones, but for very simple
operations.
Btw, is oscroute better than normal route? That is, are there advantages
in doing the routing in osc, besides just outside osc? (relatively to
where osc is concerned, not about patching after/before osc)
João
Jaime Oliver wrote:
Hi all, Does anyone know of a later implementation of OSC for Pd, besides Martin Peach's 2006?
Some changes since then: http://pure-data.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/pure-data/trunk/externals/mrpeac...
Martin
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
João Pais wrote:
Hi,
is there any clear place which describes the advantages of this package with the old osc objects? I still use the old ones, but for very simple operations.
no. i guess the best is the list archives and http://wiki.puredata.info/en/How_to_use_OSC
Btw, is oscroute better than normal route? That is, are there advantages
it's something different.
in doing the routing in osc, besides just outside osc? (relatively to where osc is concerned, not about patching after/before osc)
an OSC message is "/bi/ba/bo 1 2 3". with [route] you can strip off the entire and only the entire "/bi/ba/bo". with [routeOSC] you can strip off he first element and only the first element "/bi". and you can use wildcards.
[route] will perform better, as it only does comparisions of the symbols (that is: comparision whether 2 poniners are equal), whereas [routeOSC] has to do string comparisions (with wildcards!)
fmgasdr. IOhannes
Btw, is oscroute better than normal route? That is, are there advantages
it's something different.
in doing the routing in osc, besides just outside osc? (relatively to where osc is concerned, not about patching after/before osc)
an OSC message is "/bi/ba/bo 1 2 3". with [route] you can strip off the entire and only the entire
"/bi/ba/bo". with [routeOSC] you can strip off he first element and only the first element "/bi". and you can use wildcards.[route] will perform better, as it only does comparisions of the symbols (that is: comparision whether 2 poniners are equal), whereas [routeOSC] has to do string comparisions (with wildcards!)
thanks, this is exactly what I wanted to know.
as there seems to be no mod~ object, how might I achieve the same effect?
ie, lets say I have a line~ going from -50 to 1050 to play back from a table, but my table is only 1000 samps wide, so I want to mod the line <mod~ 1000>
makes sense?
a
Andy Wilson wrote:
as there seems to be no mod~ object, how might I achieve the same effect?
ie, lets say I have a line~ going from -50 to 1050 to play back from a table, but my table is only 1000 samps wide, so I want to mod the line <mod~ 1000>
makes sense?
[wrap~]
fmgasdr IOhannes
Hallo, Andy Wilson hat gesagt: // Andy Wilson wrote:
as there seems to be no mod~ object, how might I achieve the same effect?
ie, lets say I have a line~ going from -50 to 1050 to play back from a
table, but my table is only 1000 samps wide, so I want to mod the line
<mod~ 1000>
You can use [wrap~] to replace it to some extent. [wrap~] will output the fractional part of a signal, that is, the part between integer values.
In your case you could use:
[/~ 1000] | [wrap~] | [*~ 1000]
to restrict all signals to lie between 0 and 1000. Beware that [wrap~] has a longstanding bug in that [wrap~] of [sig~ 0] gives "1" as result instead of 0 as per specification. If it's important, you can statically add a [sig~ 1] to [wrap~].
Also see here: http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-list/2007-05/049748.html for an older [mod~] question.
Frank