Yeah, I'd definitely be in to help with this! Cheers Luke

On Feb 2, 2008 5:04 PM, Hans-Christoph Steiner hans@eds.org wrote:

Yeah, I'd love to help out where I can. I was really bummed that Elephants Dream didn't use FOSS for sound, I think they didn't try hard enough. I've done a lot of very reliable installations using Pd, if it is good enough for the NY Times lobby, it's good enough for Blender. :)

I think that people could use multiple platforms to work on Pd patches, I think for the most part Pd-vanilla/Pd-extended let's you work very much in a cross-platform way. The key to making this work is having a point person, so if someone is willing to be the lead and manage everything, then I think we have a strong proposal.

By the way, is the Pablo Martin on the Apricot team caedes (who has done some work with PDP)?

.hc

On Feb 2, 2008, at 3:26 PM, Dafydd Hughes wrote:

...

I'd love to take part, although I'm not on Studio64. Is there any reason it wouldn't be compatible between S64 and say Ubuntustudio?

I agree - super cool opportunity.

cheers dafydd

On Feb 2, 2008 2:53 PM, padawan12@obiwannabe.co.uk wrote:

...

I agree, and have more or less reached the stage where I could sound design an entire small film in Pd.

Time is obviously a factor and if I were to do this it would really need a few other volunteers who were enthusiastic about it (sound design for such a feature could be a challenging project)

Anyway, what stuck me was something (I think it was) Dan James said about Elephants Dream; - that despite the visuals being entirely FOSS the soundtrack had to employ Windows/non-free components because of a lack of reliable sound tools and skills. That reflects on us all rather badly of course.

Let's say the Blender Apricot team were amenable to the idea and we could reach a concensus to using the new film as a vehicle to showcase Pd, would anybody else like to be involved in a sound design team using Pd 0.40 on 64Studio with a Python interface to the event stream? Or maybe Lua would be our timeline/event glue.

I am of course open to other suggestions or to supporting another team with radically different ideas, but this is how it would work best for me.

andy

...

This sounds like a great opportunity for Pd, especially considering that Pd is the sound engine in the game Spore.

.hc

On Feb 1, 2008, at 7:09 PM, olme wrote:

...

seeing this: http://apricot.blender.org/?p=59 , I had the idea that somebody could do it efficiently with generated sound dezign (like brilliantly discussed earlier here by andy - obiwannabe.co.uk )

In short : Blender Instituut search for a sound designer for the upcoming opensource game codenamed "apricot".

I'm in no way related to this instituut or project, just that I thought it could interrest someone that is developping on pd for games, as this one is already promised some exposure in the opensource/free software world, in the CGI world (with the short film produced right now : see peach.blender.org ) and in the game world (it will surely make some lines in game magasines) ...

I think those working for this project "in the front line" are payed, so it could be a good incentive to have some kind of opensource exemple of a current game made with pd.

Blender Game Engine has already been used with pd through py-OSC, but this project use the CrystalSpace Game Engine... I don't know about the connectivity, but as CS use python, it's maybe just some lines away....

I would be interrested to see the result anyway ... as I'm not able to do it myself ...

Ol.me http://www.ogeem.be

---

PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/ listinfo/pd-list

---

---

---

News is what people want to keep hidden and everything else is publicity. - Bill Moyers

---

PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list

---

PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/ listinfo/pd-list

-- www.sideshowmedia.ca skype: chickeninthegrass

---

---

All information should be free. - the hacker ethic

---

PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list

On Sat, 2008-02-02 at 20:04 -0500, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:

Yeah, I'd love to help out where I can. I was really bummed that
Elephants Dream didn't use FOSS for sound, I think they didn't try
hard enough. I've done a lot of very reliable installations using
Pd, if it is good enough for the NY Times lobby, it's good enough for
Blender. :)

it's not about reliability, it's probably more about workflow. i agree with the makers of Elephants Dream, that it's hard to find FOSS software for advanced sound editing. i speak from frustrating personal experience. i've spent hours trying to find even only an appropriate sound editor and it makes me sad to see, that so many people work on so many different projects, but none of them is actually usuable in a professional environment (and noone seems to want to bundle the energy with others). i also noticed, that in the audio foss world some people tend to stick to elitism and don't want to work on making things more usuable (just hang a day around in #alsa). i don't want to generalize that, but that was my experience outside the nice and friendly pd-world. it's sad, but especially for mastering tasks i still have to stick with proprietary tools on a proprietary operating system, since working with foss tools is still way far from being as efficient as with the tools that are usually used in studios. i am no expert in 3d world, but i think that this doesn't apply to blender as much. it seems to me that blender is a very advanced software. but back to pd: no matter how cool pd is, you wouldn't want to use it to edit a radio jingle with many layers to exactly a certain lenght with mastering (compressing/limiting etc), would you?

roman

___________________________________________________________ Der frühe Vogel fängt den Wurm. Hier gelangen Sie zum neuen Yahoo! Mail: http://mail.yahoo.de

thanks for mentioning those. we're getting a bit OT now, but just a few quick comments:

-ardour is certainly a great and advanced DAW, no doubt. recording can be definitely done with FOSS.

• jamin is cool and powerful software too, but it follows the wrong

strategy: you can only use it in real-time, since it is a jack-plugin. having to render in realtime is a pain and dangerous in many situations (all drop-outs are in the resulting file). OTOH, LADSPA plugins don't support customized guis, AFAIK, therefor there is no option to do something like jamin as a LADSPA plugin. IMHO, most LADSPA plugins might be good scientific applications, but definitely not for everyday studio work (no visual feedback, strange scales of parameters).

• both ardour, jamin and almost all sound editors i found don't have an

accelerated gui. scrolling causes high cpu peaks.i don't know any software on windows, that uses cpu for the gui part. it's sad, that i have hardware (gpu) in my box, which isn't used at all (but only when i do Gem).

• i actually appreciate the concept of modularized and specialized

tools, that are connected over a soundsever instead of a monolithic 'it can do everything' tool. however, since LASH and its precedessor LADCCA don't have the same level support in each software, that could be used in a studio environment, it's kinda hard to manage projects.

• there is not audio editor around, that even loosely fulfills my needs.

probably the makers of Elephants Dream felt the same. Some of them lack native jack support, others use very strange sets of shortcuts, or are pretty raw in general.

yo, those are just a few reasons why the makers of Elephants Dream may didn't want to go for FOSS for the sound part. i hope it's only a question of waiting some years, until the audio world gets to similar level as blender reached in the 3d world.

roman

On Sun, 2008-02-03 at 09:31 +0100, Georg Holzmann wrote:

Hallo!

...

it's sad, but especially for mastering tasks i still have to stick with proprietary tools on a proprietary operating system, since working with foss tools is still way far from being as efficient as with the tools that are usually used in studios.

Did you try Ardour+Jamin ? I did some recording projects with it in summer and it just worked quite well ... it works similar like a protools setup.

LG Georg

---

PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list

Telefonate ohne weitere Kosten vom PC zum PC: http://messenger.yahoo.de

Hallo, Roman Haefeli hat gesagt: // Roman Haefeli wrote:

thanks for mentioning those. we're getting a bit OT now, but just a few quick comments:

-ardour is certainly a great and advanced DAW, no doubt. recording can be definitely done with FOSS.

• jamin is cool and powerful software too, but it follows the wrong

strategy: you can only use it in real-time, since it is a jack-plugin. having to render in realtime is a pain and dangerous in many situations (all drop-outs are in the resulting file). OTOH, LADSPA plugins don't support customized guis, AFAIK, therefor there is no option to do something like jamin as a LADSPA plugin. IMHO, most LADSPA plugins might be good scientific applications, but definitely not for everyday studio work (no visual feedback, strange scales of parameters).

LADSPA plugins don't have a GUI at all, so every GUI you get is a customized one. LADSPA-plugins itself are perfectly able to be run in non-realtime. For example if you render an Ardour session with LADSPA plugins in it to file, this is done in non-realtime fashion. Often it's done faster than realtime.

• both ardour, jamin and almost all sound editors i found don't have an

accelerated gui. scrolling causes high cpu peaks.i don't know any software on windows, that uses cpu for the gui part. it's sad, that i have hardware (gpu) in my box, which isn't used at all (but only when i do Gem).

The actually drawing is accelerated by the graphics card already. However a tricky question that cannot simply be shovelled to the gfx-card (so easily) is how to decide which samples to display at all. For example when zoomed out, you don't need to draw every single sample. Ardour uses a sophisticated algorithm for deciding things like that, AFAIK. (IIRC Paul Davis once said that this was one of the hardest parts in Ardour to get right.) Compare that to Pd, which doesn't even bother with trying to be smart here, which results in slowdown when moving arrays with many elements, even when they are displayed in only a small area.

All in all to me Ardour doesn't feel slow at all. Audacity OTOH is slow (and all around terrible for my taste anyway) as was the last version of SoundForge for Windows, that I had to run at work - though I admit that this was some years ago. But Ardour feels very snappy and quick here.

• there is not audio editor around, that even loosely fulfills my needs.

probably the makers of Elephants Dream felt the same. Some of them lack native jack support, others use very strange sets of shortcuts, or are pretty raw in general.

Uhm, while Blender certainly is great, you aren't seriously trying to tell me you really think its shortcuts are intuitive, are you?!? ;-) Someone who mastered Blender should have no problems with Ardour, given he invests about a tenth of the time to learn it.

Ciao

Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org__

sorry, i accidently hit send, while i wasn't finished.

On Sun, 2008-02-03 at 13:52 +0100, Frank Barknecht wrote:

The actually drawing is accelerated by the graphics card already. However a tricky question that cannot simply be shovelled to the gfx-card (so easily) is how to decide which samples to display at all. For example when zoomed out, you don't need to draw every single sample. Ardour uses a sophisticated algorithm for deciding things like that, AFAIK. (IIRC Paul Davis once said that this was one of the hardest parts in Ardour to get right.) Compare that to Pd, which doesn't even bother with trying to be smart here, which results in slowdown when moving arrays with many elements, even when they are displayed in only a small area.

All in all to me Ardour doesn't feel slow at all. Audacity OTOH is slow (and all around terrible for my taste anyway) as was the last version of SoundForge for Windows, that I had to run at work - though I admit that this was some years ago. But Ardour feels very snappy and quick here.

you're right, that it doesn't feel slow, however, whether it's related to hardware acceleration or not, it causes peaks when simply scrolling the timeline (no zooming). many linux softwares do that, whereas no audio editor or daw for windows i know does cause peaks while scrolling. so there is still room for improvements, whether it's hardware acceleration related or not. and after all, ardour is a bad example, since it's probably the best software in that respect and in terms of usability.

...

• there is not audio editor around, that even loosely fulfills my needs.

probably the makers of Elephants Dream felt the same. Some of them lack native jack support, others use very strange sets of shortcuts, or are pretty raw in general.

Uhm, while Blender certainly is great, you aren't seriously trying to tell me you really think its shortcuts are intuitive, are you?!? ;-)

no, but i wouldn't compare the complexity of sound-editing to the one of creating animated 3D-environments. many softwares in the proprietary world have proven, that sound editing can be easy, where at the same time there is no (this is my personal opinion, of course) no usable audio editor for linux around and yet no plugins or plugin architecture, that would allow mastering. blender might be not easy to learn, but it has proven, that it can be used for very complex projects as rendering animated movies.

Someone who mastered Blender should have no problems with Ardour, given he invests about a tenth of the time to learn it.

yeah

roman

___________________________________________________________ Der frühe Vogel fängt den Wurm. Hier gelangen Sie zum neuen Yahoo! Mail: http://mail.yahoo.de

Hallo, marius schebella hat gesagt: // marius schebella wrote:

Frank Barknecht wrote:

...

Uhm, while Blender certainly is great, you aren't seriously trying to tell me you really think its shortcuts are intuitive, are you?!? ;-)

how do you want to manage hundreds of commands intuitively? I would say camera rotation is intuitive.

Vi is more intuitive. ;)

Anyway I never said that Blender's shortcuts were unnecessary or that the should be done in a different way. My point is: If someone can understand Blender's GUI he should have no problems understanding Ardours or any other audio editors GUIs, because these are all much simpler.

Ciao

Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org__

On Wed, 2008-02-13 at 19:03 +0100, Pablo Martin wrote:

Frank Barknecht escribió:

...

Hallo, Roman Haefeli hat gesagt: // Roman Haefeli wrote:

Uhm, while Blender certainly is great, you aren't seriously trying to tell me you really think its shortcuts are intuitive, are you?!? ;-) Someone who mastered Blender should have no problems with Ardour, given he invests about a tenth of the time to learn it.

Maybe mastering it will take less time that blender (as blender has so many features), but i *really* think it's easier to get used to blender initially (s, g, r, tab ;)). Not that it matters that much... It's probably a matter of field of interest, but still, as a simple tool, mostly everyone i know and cares a little can use blender to a certain degree (for making small vj videos, or simple props for games), while they can't use ardour (even though some would really like to learn).

Note i don't have anything special against ardour :), but your remark deserved some kind of action ;).

Also, i don't imply that blender is perfect in the usability field at all of course.

Anyways, lets better forget this happened XD, dont want no holy usability war....

me neither. and it was also not my point in comparing blender and ardour in terms of usability, initially. my point was to be appreciative for the makers of elephants dreams decision to use non-free audio software. i highly appreciate softwares like ardour and puredata, but those don't cover everything one needs to do in the field of audio (yet and in my personal opinion, at least).

yo, but i shut up now and hope i can come to LAC next year and hopefully see what cool projects people do by using FOSS tools.

roman

Telefonate ohne weitere Kosten vom PC zum PC: http://messenger.yahoo.de

Hello,

Basic recording and editing in Ardour can be realised almost without using the keyboard at all:

Anyway Pd beats both in simplicity by only requiring 6 special keyboard shortcuts: Ctl-1,...,5 and Ctl-e ;)

Just a quick note that I contradict the view that point and click == good user interface. Additionally I think mouse is a bad unnatural invention but that is because I suffer of carpal tunnel syndrome for years now which I only overcome with the use of graphic tablets but in general the distances you have to go back and forth with mouse is ridiculous and waste of time, particular when making music and having to interact in time. I experienced a high increase of productivity with learning the key shortcuts of applications and thinking about programming a sequencer which doesnt work with mouse anyway (but is not a tracker either, more MPC style). In general I think much about user interfaces and hope to come up with better ideas, point and click is so stoneage and its crazy to fit in all kind of application in this metaphor.

Physical hardware user interfaces are one solution, like control surfaces in the audio world. 3D is always a hassle because you usually manipulate 3D on 2D screen. My experience with datagloves is so lala having the bad P5 which is not precise, modelling with it would lead to funny results. And holding up hands in front of the screen is tiresome too. Same was with Lightpen on CRT monitors but both are gone now. I have no experiences with 3D mouses yet...

Cheers,

Malte

On Feb 3, 2008, at 6:51 AM, Roman Haefeli wrote:

thanks for mentioning those. we're getting a bit OT now, but just a
few quick comments:

-ardour is certainly a great and advanced DAW, no doubt. recording can be definitely done with FOSS.

• jamin is cool and powerful software too, but it follows the wrong

strategy: you can only use it in real-time, since it is a jack-plugin. having to render in realtime is a pain and dangerous in many
situations (all drop-outs are in the resulting file). OTOH, LADSPA plugins don't support customized guis, AFAIK, therefor there is no option to do something like jamin as a LADSPA plugin. IMHO, most LADSPA plugins
might be good scientific applications, but definitely not for everyday
studio work (no visual feedback, strange scales of parameters).

• both ardour, jamin and almost all sound editors i found don't

have an accelerated gui. scrolling causes high cpu peaks.i don't know any software on windows, that uses cpu for the gui part. it's sad, that i have hardware (gpu) in my box, which isn't used at all (but only
when i do Gem).

On Mac OS X, at least, the OS handles moving the GUI drawing to the
GPU. I think that's what compiz/beryl is trying to do as well, and
I'll bet GNOME is doing some of that too. I'll be Windows does that
as well. If you are writing an audio editor, I don't think you
should be thinking about the GPU, that's the OS's job.

• i actually appreciate the concept of modularized and specialized

tools, that are connected over a soundsever instead of a monolithic
'it can do everything' tool. however, since LASH and its precedessor
LADCCA don't have the same level support in each software, that could be used in a studio environment, it's kinda hard to manage projects.

• there is not audio editor around, that even loosely fulfills my

needs. probably the makers of Elephants Dream felt the same. Some of them
lack native jack support, others use very strange sets of shortcuts, or are pretty raw in general.

Every audio app has their own strange shortcuts, Logic is quite
strange for example. That's mostly a matter of learning them. It
would be nice if they used the standard key commands for the OS tho.

yo, those are just a few reasons why the makers of Elephants Dream may didn't want to go for FOSS for the sound part. i hope it's only a question of waiting some years, until the audio world gets to similar level as blender reached in the 3d world.

Ardour is definitely comparable to blender, if not better. I think
it was more a matter of finding someone who was willing to work for
very little money on the project who would use free tools. Being the
Blender Foundation, their focus was the 3D part, understandably, so
it wasn't a big deal to use proprietary software for the audio. Now
that they have proven the model for getting projects done, I think
there is no real excuse not to use all FOSS for the whole project.

I talked with Bassam Kurdali, the Director of Elephants Dream, about
this and that's pretty much what he said. I think that they want to
do it all FOSS, they just need people willing to do the work. So
let's do the work! :D

.hc

roman

On Sun, 2008-02-03 at 09:31 +0100, Georg Holzmann wrote:

...

Hallo!

...

it's sad, but especially for mastering tasks i still have to
stick with proprietary tools on a proprietary operating system, since
working with foss tools is still way far from being as efficient as with the
tools that are usually used in studios.

Did you try Ardour+Jamin ? I did some recording projects with it in summer and it just worked
quite well ... it works similar like a protools setup.

LG Georg

---

PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/ listinfo/pd-list

___________________________________________________________ Telefonate ohne weitere Kosten vom PC zum PC: http:// messenger.yahoo.de

---

PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/ listinfo/pd-list

Man has survived hitherto because he was too ignorant to know how to
realize his wishes. Now that he can realize them, he must either
change them, or perish. -William Carlos Williams

Roman Haefeli wrote:

yo, those are just a few reasons why the makers of Elephants Dream may didn't want to go for FOSS for the sound part. i hope it's only a question of waiting some years, until the audio world gets to similar level as blender reached in the 3d world.

roman

Hmm, one more reason: elephant's dream was a blender project. some of the grant money went into core development of blender itself to adjust it to production features. one of the goals of the film was, to see whether blender would pass the "ready for a real film" exam. blender people just did not have the budget (and goal) to develop on the sound side, too. btw, blender forum has about 30.000 registered users. pd maybe 1000-3000??? marius.

Roman Haefeli wrote:

...

btw, blender forum has about 30.000 registered users. pd maybe 1000-3000???

where do you want to go with this question? i like pd, otherwise i wouldn't use it. the fact that i like pd for what it is doesn't automatically turn it into an audio editing suite and i am not complaining about pd.

I only posted the numbers to compare/show why blender gets more money, focus, and has more developers than pd. it is possible that blender will produce 10 more films before pd gets a comparable amount of development money from the European Union (where most of the budget for elephants dream came from...). I am not complaining about Pd at all! marius.

On Feb 2, 2008, at 9:11 PM, Roman Haefeli wrote:

On Sat, 2008-02-02 at 20:04 -0500, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:

...

Yeah, I'd love to help out where I can. I was really bummed that Elephants Dream didn't use FOSS for sound, I think they didn't try hard enough. I've done a lot of very reliable installations using Pd, if it is good enough for the NY Times lobby, it's good enough for Blender. :)

it's not about reliability, it's probably more about workflow. i agree with the makers of Elephants Dream, that it's hard to find FOSS
software for advanced sound editing. i speak from frustrating personal experience. i've spent hours trying to find even only an appropriate sound editor and it makes me sad to see, that so many people work
on so many different projects, but none of them is actually usuable in a professional environment (and noone seems to want to bundle the energy with others). i also noticed, that in the audio foss world some people tend to stick to elitism and don't want to work on making things more usuable (just hang a day around in #alsa). i don't want to generalize that, but that was my experience outside the nice and friendly pd- world. it's sad, but especially for mastering tasks i still have to stick
with proprietary tools on a proprietary operating system, since working
with foss tools is still way far from being as efficient as with the tools that are usually used in studios. i am no expert in 3d world, but i think that this doesn't apply to blender as much. it seems to me that blender is a very advanced software. but back to pd: no matter how
cool pd is, you wouldn't want to use it to edit a radio jingle with many layers to exactly a certain lenght with mastering (compressing/ limiting etc), would you?

Blender lacks some standard tools that all of the big ones have
(Maya, 3D Studio, etc) and yet they made amazing animations with it.
A core reason for that project was to figure out the problems with
Blender in a production environment and work on improving them.

It is a shame they did not take the same approach with the audio.
The synthesis was done using Reactor, for example. I think that Pd
is pretty clearly a more capable real-time synth than Reactor, but
yes, it's rough around the edges.

As for mastering, I did a lot of work as a sound designer in Sound
Forge/Windows back in 2000, and now I use Audacity. Admittedly, I
don't do super elaborate mastering. I will say that Audacity could
use more polishing and some efficiency tweaks, and a fancier GUI
might be useful. But bottom line, it gets the job done. If the idea
of the movie was to be a free/open project, I think it was a copout
to use proprietary tools for audio. Audacity now is better than
Sound Forge was in 2000. Lots of professionals were using Sound
Forge in 2000, using Audacity now you'll be better off than them.

.hc

As we enjoy great advantages from inventions of others, we should be
glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours; and
this we should do freely and generously. - Benjamin Franklin

Hi!

Sorry guys i didnt see this thread before...

Hans-Christoph Steiner escribió:

By the way, is the Pablo Martin on the Apricot team caedes (who has
done some work with PDP)?

Yeah :). Thats why there is so much interest in using pd (also we got some emails already about people )... as i'm talking about it with people. Of course there is a lot of concern about some stuff, as we have huge todolist already, which is why i started a thread this morning to try get some feedback. My main concern is i have some experience in controlling pd from some other programs (both games and vj tools) and i always wished to be able to control pd from program itself instead of its command line interface (which sucks :D), ie, use it as a real library. If people can answer my question and maybe even step forward to help (with the library thing), all the better. This is a great opportunity to do some cross publicizing of different tools.

Pablo

afaik, xmlrpc is a little bit slower, because it uses a pull mechanism. you send a request from a client to the server and that responds with data. i think just sending osc over udp is faster. don't know about securityissues... marius.

Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:

On Feb 11, 2008, at 9:43 AM, Pablo Martin wrote:

...

Hi!

Sorry guys i didnt see this thread before...

Hans-Christoph Steiner escribió:

...

By the way, is the Pablo Martin on the Apricot team caedes (who has done some work with PDP)?

Yeah :). Thats why there is so much interest in using pd (also we got some emails already about people )... as i'm talking about it with people. Of course there is a lot of concern about some stuff, as we
have huge todolist already, which is why i started a thread this morning to try get some feedback. My main concern is i have some experience in controlling pd from some other programs (both games and vj tools)
and i always wished to be able to control pd from program itself instead of its command line interface (which sucks :D), ie, use it as a real library. If people can answer my question and maybe even step
forward to help (with the library thing), all the better. This is a great opportunity to do some cross publicizing of different tools.

You might be interested in IEM's xmlrpc library for Pd. That will
give you an interface closer to a library. We could use this project
as an impetus to get iemxmlrpc into Pd-extended, if it isn't
already. Other options are OSC, and just using Pd messages over a
network socket (they are very simple format, anything ASCII ending
with a semi-colon and a carraige return).

It would also be a useful test case for steering the build system
towards making custom distros. This would mean that Apricot could
easily use any Pd library that is included in Pd-extended, but we
could then strip out anything that isn't actually used.

I'll be in Amsterdam from April 30th until May 7th ish, I could meet
up with you guys for some face time, if that's not too late. :)

.hc

---

---

There is no way to peace, peace is the way. -A.J. Muste

---

PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list

Hi!

Hans-Christoph Steiner escribió:

On Feb 11, 2008, at 9:43 AM, Pablo Martin wrote:

...

Hi!

Sorry guys i didnt see this thread before...

Hans-Christoph Steiner escribió:

You might be interested in IEM's xmlrpc library for Pd. That will
give you an interface closer to a library. We could use this project
as an impetus to get iemxmlrpc into Pd-extended, if it isn't
already. Other options are OSC, and just using Pd messages over a
network socket (they are very simple format, anything ASCII ending
with a semi-colon and a carraige return).

If we use it we would most probably use OSC as I have already much experience in using it for communicating pd to other programs, also, we already have an OSC plugin for crystalspace that exposes most of the world :) (which means we would be able to control basically any parameter or logic for the game from pd).

It would also be a useful test case for steering the build system
towards making custom distros. This would mean that Apricot could
easily use any Pd library that is included in Pd-extended, but we
could then strip out anything that isn't actually used.

I'll be in Amsterdam from April 30th until May 7th ish, I could meet
up with you guys for some face time, if that's not too late. :)

Well, it'll be a bit late to make big decisions for the project, but of course you're welcome to come over :)

Cheers!

Pablo