Zachary Seldess

Does anyone know if it is possible to change the arguments for route without going into edit mode? I know it can be done with scripting, but I'm looking for another way. I'm using route inside a poly~ and I want to update the argument with the instance number of the thispoly~ object - something like that. Here are two ways to get around the problem, but they each require several objects - which will probably take a toll when using 100 instances inside poly~. So a simple solution using route would be ideal. Any ideas?

changeable-route-argument

try xroute or Tim Place's tap.route. Check maxobjects.com for the 

On Nov 17, 2007, at 7:52 AM, Zachary Seldess wrote:

> Does anyone know if it is possible to change the arguments for 

> route without going into edit mode? I know it can be done with 

> scripting, but I'm looking for another way. I'm using route inside 

> a poly~ and I want to update the argument with the instance number 

> of the thispoly~ object - something like that. Here are two ways to 

> get around the problem, but they each require several objects - 

> which will probably take a toll when using 100 instances inside 

> poly~. So a simple solution using route would be ideal. Any ideas?

try xroute or Tim Place's tap.route. Check maxobjects.com for the  
download links.

>
> Does anyone know if it is possible to change the arguments for  
> route without going into edit mode? I know it can be done with  
> scripting, but I'm looking for another way. I'm using route inside  
> a poly~ and I want to update the argument with the instance number  
> of the thispoly~ object - something like that. Here are two ways to  
> get around the problem, but they each require several objects -  
> which will probably take a toll when using 100 instances inside  
> poly~. So a simple solution using route would be ideal. Any ideas?
>


There's also a dynamic route abstraction in v001 (

There's also a dynamic route abstraction in v001 (http://001.vade.info). 


Thanks for the leads. It ends up not making a significant difference in terms of CPU expense, but at least it simplifies the patching a bit.

> I'm using route inside a poly~ and I want to update the argument with

> the instance number of the thispoly~ object - something like that.

> Here are two ways to get around the problem, but they each require

> several objects - which will probably take a toll when using 100

It won't take a toll if you put this into an abstraction...

but poly has its own router built in there is actually no need to have 

the route in the poly abstraction. I'd do it with the target message to 

Zachary Seldess schrieb:
> I'm using route inside a poly~ and I want to update the argument with
> the instance number of the thispoly~ object - something like that.
> Here are two ways to get around the problem, but they each require
> several objects - which will probably take a toll when using 100
> instances inside poly~. 

but poly has its own router built in there is actually no need to have 
the route in the poly abstraction. I'd do it with the target message to 
poly~ instead...

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

Right, your example is nearly identical to one of mine posted above. I was looking for a single-object solution, as well - provided above. Thanks.

Perhaps I have misunderstood your requirements, but could you not use

the target message to poly~ ? this would mean having the receive

object in the main patch and prepending 'target n' to an inlet of

> Right, your example is nearly identical to one of mine posted above. I was looking for a single-object solution, as well - provided above. Thanks.

Perhaps I have misunderstood your requirements, but could you not use
the target message to poly~ ?  this would mean having the receive
object in the main patch and prepending 'target n' to an inlet of
poly~

On 20/11/2007, Zachary Seldess  wrote:
>
> Right, your example is nearly identical to one of mine posted above. I was looking for a single-object solution, as well - provided above. Thanks.
> --
> http://www.zacharyseldess.com
>
>


Aahh, Samuel and Stefan, your're both right about the target message. Too much coffee not enough sleep - brain......not....... working.

Aahh, Samuel and Stefan, your're both right about the target message. Too much coffee not enough sleep - brain......not.......   working.

just found this old topic as I am in this very same situation..

Tried to prepend 'target n' to what I want to send to the poly~ instance (a list of two numbers in this case), but doesn't really work...?

I doublechecked and the instance is not receiving my list..

Of course if I just send the message 'target n' to the poly~ inlet, then anything being sent through that inlet will go to the specified instance, but I need to assign a different target for each message.. so the prepend would be ideal, but doesn't work :(

Tried to prepend 'target n' to what I want to send to the poly~ instance (a list of two numbers in this case), but doesn't really work...?
I doublechecked and the instance is not receiving my list..

Of course if I just send the message 'target n' to the poly~ inlet, then anything being sent through that inlet will go to the specified instance, but I need to assign a different target for each message.. so the prepend would be ideal, but doesn't work :( 

I hope you guys have a solution!
Thanks a lot for your help!

You can't just prepend. They would need to be sent as two messages; target first.

Alternatively you could send with just the instance number prepended, then route internally.

Yep route internally is what I'm doing now, using xroute tho cause I need it to be dynamic. Works good, but don't like the idea that all the messages are sent to all instances, sounds like a waste of resources to me..

I have many lists (one for each instance, 60 times per second) being sent in realtime from another app (vvvv) via osc, so it would be a lot of target messages, I don't think it make sense, what do you think? thanks!

if you need to receive target message for every message, you

every time when you want to send a list to a specific voice

number - except when it is the same voice than the one before.

p.s. i agree about the route version not beeing perfect. it is

easier and causess less messages when doing the target stuff

if you need to receive target message for every message, you
need to send one.

every time when you want to send a list to a specific voice
number - except when it is the same voice than the one before.

p.s. i agree about the route version not beeing perfect. it is
easier and causess less messages when doing the target stuff
totally outside.


I will try with the trigger object, I'm just a beginner in max and didn't think about it, shame on me :)

But it's probably the best solution indeed

I will try with the trigger object, I'm just a beginner in max and didn't think about it, shame on me :)
But it's probably the best solution indeed
Will try and report here, thanks!


changeable route argument