Dotan Brand

Hello evryone, I would like to share with you my new approach.

It is inpisred by the firt few seconds of this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyxLpeViRlo

 (you can find a nice patch which does the same).

In general, I'm trying to get the same effect as he has with the dial/jog/rotary, so I keep spinning and the numbers either goes up or down. I took the simple dial and unclipped it. then I did it 360 degrees. the probelm was that it ran up to 360 and then back to 0, so no luck.

in the attached patch you can see the nice solution i had for this problem. However, if you will look at the print you will see that each time it cross from 360 back to 0 or the other way around, it decrease. This is not a real problem for we will get it once in a while but still, if you fellows have any good solution for this or if you find any other way to make the same approach in an easier way, please share.

Hello evryone, I would like to share with you my new approach.
It is inpisred by the firt few seconds of this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyxLpeViRlo (you can find a nice patch which does the same).
In general, I'm trying to get the same effect as he has with the dial/jog/rotary, so I keep spinning and the numbers either goes up or down. I took the simple dial and unclipped it. then I did it 360 degrees. the probelm was that it ran up to 360 and then back to 0, so no luck.
in the attached patch you can see the nice solution i had for this problem. However, if you will look at the print you will see that each time it cross from 360 back to 0 or the other way around, it decrease. This is not a real problem for we will get it once in a while but still, if you fellows have any good solution for this or if you find any other way to make the same approach in an easier way, please share.
In the meantime, enjoy my trick :)


endless-rotary-with-accumolator

Yup, I've come across that as well. I can't check the patch at the moment, but maybe it is the same one I am using (is it called "more or less"?)

I haven't thought about an alternate solution yet but when I have some time to think about it. I may have had some success using a counter but something may have become a problem, I might try that route again.

Yup, I've come across that as well.  I can't check the patch at the moment, but maybe it is the same one I am using (is it called "more or less"?)
I haven't thought about an alternate solution yet but when I have some time to think about it.  I may have had some success using a counter but something may have become a problem, I might try that route again.


in case "more or less" is "110.mol?" i should add that this old [if]-based abstraction has been made before i knew about [accum].

sending + 1 and - 1 to accum would be the most straight forward way to realize such a control, because accum can also be reset to 0 by just multiplying it with 0 in the second inlet, so you dont need an extra int object as parameter.

Endless rotary with accumolator