Subject: Re: [ecasound] controlling controllers
From: janne halttunen (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Sep 04 2001 - 12:51:12 EEST
On Mon, 3 Sep 2001, S. Massy wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Sep 2001, janne halttunen <email@example.com> wrote:
> > ..now I could reach effect with -kx:0 switch, but how about ctrl2? Should
> > there be -kx:y, where y would be the distance from the following controller,
> > special-casing 0, which would mean the effect?
> > So that if I wanted to start a branch on ctrl2:
> > -effect
> > -ctrl1 (controls effect) -kx -ctrl2 (controls ctrl1)
> > -ctrl3 (controls ctrl1) -kx -ctrl4 (controls ctrl3)
> > -kx:3 -ctrl5 (controls ctrl2)
> > What do you think?
> The latter seems the best way to go about it logicwise, where it
> basically is considered as a tree, where there basically can be as
> many branches as there are parameters to control on each
> level. The root of the tree is the cop and then each subsequent
> controller is a node on the tree; you select to what controller you
> are going to refer to by the number of the node, basically as you just
> said (with nodes numbered in their order of definition and zero
> referring to the root or cop).
Oh, I meant that -kx:1 (in ctrl5) would control ctrl4, -kx:2 ctrl3.. and so
on, but the way you put it sounds more reasonable. The default value of -kx
without parameters would then be -1.
> Now, that's the logic way to go, but is
> it of any practical use? So far, the most complex setup I've ever had
> in term of controllers was two controllers targeting a cop with one
> of these controllers being controlled in turn, but maybe others have
> more complex needs in that respect.
If it's easily implemented, why not? I mean, I would definately love to
experiment with totally insane controller-setups.
-- To unsubscribe send message 'unsubscribe' in the body of the message to <firstname.lastname@example.org>.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Tue Sep 04 2001 - 12:49:40 EEST