cyclops and jit.cyclops externals (fix reminder)

Oct 16, 2006 at 12:34pm

cyclops and jit.cyclops externals (fix reminder)

hello jeremy,

i wanted to make sure this impending fix stayed current, as i believe it
caused an error in a performance i did with cyclops recently (the weekend
before). i mistakenly opened a zone editor while repositioning a zone,
which changed the threshold to a number that made the zone not trigger (i.e.
the threshold became one of those large negative numbers i mentioned
before).

best,
john

Hi John -
>
> Sorry I missed your personal email on this last night. The list is
> better for this kind of thing, in any case.
>
> I can verify this problem, in both Cyclops and jit.cyclops. I haven’t
> had a chance to investigate and likely won’t in the next week or so.
> For now, I would use the messages as a workaround.
>
> Thanks for the report and watch this space for an announcement of a
> fix in the coming days.
>
> jb
>
> Am 03.10.2006 um 14:33 schrieb John Hudak:
>
> > i have been getting some odd behavior with setting zones
> > manually…for
> > instance, when i set the threshold in diffthresh to 120, then close
> > it, then
> > open it again, i see the number has changed to 240. when i set the
> > threshold to 4, close it, then open it, i get -2120. the number it
> > changes
> > to varies, but some mathematical process is going on.

#28176
Oct 16, 2006 at 1:13pm

Funny you should mention that. I spent a couple of hours today
getting that fixed. Go ahead and give this a try:

http://www.cycling74.com/download/cyclops122.dmg

Windows version and official announcement coming soon.

jb

Am 16.10.2006 um 14:34 schrieb John Hudak:

> hello jeremy,
>
> i wanted to make sure this impending fix stayed current, as i
> believe it
> caused an error in a performance i did with cyclops recently (the
> weekend
> before). i mistakenly opened a zone editor while repositioning a
> zone,
> which changed the threshold to a number that made the zone not
> trigger (i.e.
> the threshold became one of those large negative numbers i mentioned
> before).
>
> best,
> john

#86235

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.