Forums > Jitter

#1 turning into 0

June 2, 2008 | 5:30 pm

Hello,

I’m working with a colleague’s very complex particle-systems patch
(sorry, can’t post it). He uses a lot of…I’m not sure what they’re
called, but they serve as variables in send/receive defs [r #2_cam]
for instance.

I’ve been simplifying the patch (deleting some code I don’t need) and
I’m finding that _sometimes_ when I save and re-open, all of the #1′s
and #2′s turn into 0′s. Even a #2 written in a comment turns into a 0.

This is in Max 4.6.3 on a G5 running Tiger. The original patch and my
modifications are saved as .mxt.

Does anybody know why this might happen?


Morgan Sutherland


June 2, 2008 | 7:06 pm

that is most likely because the abstraction containing the #1
arguments does not have an argument typed into it. Additionally, some
objects, such as send & receive will not take numerical arguments with
no symbolic part. cf: "Arguments: $ and #, Changeable Arguments to
Objects" in the Max 4.6 Topics manual.

M

On Jun 2, 2008, at 13:30, Morgan Sutherland wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I’m working with a colleague’s very complex particle-systems patch
> (sorry, can’t post it). He uses a lot of…I’m not sure what they’re
> called, but they serve as variables in send/receive defs [r #2_cam]
> for instance.
>
> I’ve been simplifying the patch (deleting some code I don’t need) and
> I’m finding that _sometimes_ when I save and re-open, all of the #1′s
> and #2′s turn into 0′s. Even a #2 written in a comment turns into a 0.
>
> This is in Max 4.6.3 on a G5 running Tiger. The original patch and my
> modifications are saved as .mxt.
>
> Does anybody know why this might happen?
>
> —
> Morgan Sutherland


June 2, 2008 | 11:10 pm

You might want to read Max46Topics.pdf – the section on arguments. # is explained in there.


June 3, 2008 | 1:07 am

I’m a bit confused by the documentation because the patch I’m trying
to figure out is not an abstraction. Everything is on the top level in
one patcher (except for components that are one level down in
subpatches).

Also, I’m not changing anything crucial, just deleting some extraneous
code and copy-pasting from one patcher to another. Why this should
mess with the patch, I don’t know.

It’s unlikely that you guys will be able to help if it’s not a known
issue as I can’t share the patch. Thanks anyway. Back to banging my
head against the table and waiting for an email reply from the
creator.

On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 7:10 PM, Zachary Seldess wrote:
>
> You might want to read Max46Topics.pdf – the section on arguments. # is explained in there.
>
> –
> http://www.zacharyseldess.com
>
>


Morgan Sutherland


June 3, 2008 | 1:55 am

If it’s not an abstraction, it inherits #1 arguments from the level
above it (which needs to be an abstraction). Meaning that if I have a
patcher [p foo #1] inside an abstraction [bar 3.14], anywhere #1
appears in foo will be replaced with 3.14. if [p foo #1] is directly
in the top level patcher, it will naturally have a 0, as the top
patcher can’t have any arguments, as far as I know. Are you sure that
the missile guidance system you’re working on isn’t in itself intended
to be an abstraction in a higher-level patcher you don’t have security
clearance for ;-) ?

M

On Jun 2, 2008, at 21:07, Morgan Sutherland wrote:

> I’m a bit confused by the documentation because the patch I’m trying
> to figure out is not an abstraction. Everything is on the top level in
> one patcher (except for components that are one level down in
> subpatches).
>
> Also, I’m not changing anything crucial, just deleting some extraneous
> code and copy-pasting from one patcher to another. Why this should
> mess with the patch, I don’t know.
>
> It’s unlikely that you guys will be able to help if it’s not a known
> issue as I can’t share the patch. Thanks anyway. Back to banging my
> head against the table and waiting for an email reply from the
> creator.
>
> On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 7:10 PM, Zachary Seldess
> wrote:
>>
>> You might want to read Max46Topics.pdf – the section on arguments.
>> # is explained in there.
>>
>> –
>> http://www.zacharyseldess.com
>>
>>
>
>
>
> —
> Morgan Sutherland


June 3, 2008 | 10:15 am

Morgan Sutherland schrieb:
> Back to banging my head against the table and waiting for an email
> reply from the creator.

reading the #x parts of the manual and exploring the tutorials,
including doing excessive experimentation will help much better during
the wait than head banging…
(unless you listen excessively to heavy metal music on high levels at
the same time…;-)

Stefan


Stefan Tiedje————x——-
–_____———–|————–
–(_|_ —-|—–|—–()——-
– _|_)—-|—–()————–
———-()——–www.ccmix.com


June 4, 2008 | 2:05 am

I think ultimately it’s intended to be an abstraction in a higher
level patch, but it works fine as a non-abstraction and I need to use
it that way.

In any event, I’ve discovered that it only doesn’t work (meaning, it
only replaces all the #2′s and #1′s with 0) when I open it from
another patch (with "load xxxx"), which I tend to do a lot. If I open
it from the Finder, it’s fine.

Thanks for your suggestions!

On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 6:15 AM, Stefan Tiedje wrote:
> Morgan Sutherland schrieb:
>>
>> Back to banging my head against the table and waiting for an email
>> reply from the creator.
>
> reading the #x parts of the manual and exploring the tutorials,
> including doing excessive experimentation will help much better during the
> wait than head banging…
> (unless you listen excessively to heavy metal music on high levels at the
> same time…;-)
>
> Stefan
>
> –
> Stefan Tiedje————x——-
> –_____———–|————–
> –(_|_ —-|—–|—–()——-
> — _|_)—-|—–()————–
> ———-()——–www.ccmix.com
>
>


Morgan Sutherland


Viewing 7 posts - 1 through 7 (of 7 total)