Forums > MaxMSP

feature request – patchcord drawing

March 6, 2007 | 6:07 pm

Hi all,

Is there a reason that currently only drawing outlet-to-inlet
patchcord connections are possible?

It would be very useful and time-efficient if you could also connect
from inlets to outlets rather than only from outlets to inlets. In
particular, the ‘shift-click’ routine of connecting one-to-many would
be very helpful when feeding multiple outlets to one inlet by shift-
clicking and connecting one inlet to multiple outlets.

Thanks,

Steven

—-
Steven M. Miller

Home < http://pubweb.csf.edu/~smill>
SFIFEM <
http://sfifem.csf.edu>
Atrium Sound Space <
http://atrium.csf.edu>
OVOS <
http://pubweb.csf.edu/~smill/ovos.html>


March 6, 2007 | 6:38 pm

++;

I cant count how many times Ive wished for this. I can however count
howmany times ive asked…. you beat me to it!
On Mar 6, 2007, at 1:07 PM, Steven Miller wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Is there a reason that currently only drawing outlet-to-inlet
> patchcord connections are possible?
>
> It would be very useful and time-efficient if you could also
> connect from inlets to outlets rather than only from outlets to
> inlets. In particular, the ‘shift-click’ routine of connecting one-
> to-many would be very helpful when feeding multiple outlets to one
> inlet by shift-clicking and connecting one inlet to multiple outlets.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Steven
>
> —-
> Steven M. Miller
>
> Home < http://pubweb.csf.edu/~smill>
> SFIFEM <
http://sfifem.csf.edu>
> Atrium Sound Space <
http://atrium.csf.edu>
> OVOS <
http://pubweb.csf.edu/~smill/ovos.html>
>
>
>

v a d e //

http://www.vade.info
abstrakt.vade.info


March 6, 2007 | 7:50 pm

OMG, I didn’t know about the shift-click routine!! Why does this only work when shift is pressed -before- clicking the outlet?? Otherwise I would have found it.

Mattijs

Quote: smill wrote on Tue, 06 March 2007 19:07
—————————————————-
> Hi all,
>
> Is there a reason that currently only drawing outlet-to-inlet
> patchcord connections are possible?
>
> It would be very useful and time-efficient if you could also connect
> from inlets to outlets rather than only from outlets to inlets. In
> particular, the ‘shift-click’ routine of connecting one-to-many would
> be very helpful when feeding multiple outlets to one inlet by shift-
> clicking and connecting one inlet to multiple outlets.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Steven
>
> —-
> Steven M. Miller
>
> Home < http://pubweb.csf.edu/~smill>
> SFIFEM <
http://sfifem.csf.edu>
> Atrium Sound Space <
http://atrium.csf.edu>
> OVOS <
http://pubweb.csf.edu/~smill/ovos.html>
>
>
>
>
>
>
—————————————————-


March 6, 2007 | 8:19 pm

Extras > Tips has this as well as other useful shortcuts.

At the risk of being contrarian, for the slight benefit of being able
to connect things in reverse order, I think that it is easier to learn
(and this is highly debatable) when this pattern is consistent with
signal flow particularly in that it reinforces (manually) the flow of
the patch.

Peter McCulloch

http://www.petermcculloch.com


March 6, 2007 | 9:45 pm

Well I dont work for cycling, so cant fix that! but i can suggest max tool box, its quartered the time it takes for me to make big patches, and in this case its easier for connecting multiple outs to a single in etc.

You can get it here. Though I’ve often also thought it would be lurvley to do things backwards!

http://nat.imeem.com/blogs/areO4MEW

T


March 6, 2007 | 10:40 pm

Absolutely, for learning/teaching, the ‘follow the signal/data’
approach is preferable, in my mind. It’s how I teach analog
synthesis, audio recording/engineering/production, sound system
design, etc., as well as MaxMSP. But, when ‘programming’ as opposed
to ‘learning/teaching’ – short cuts that improve work flow &
efficiency are a plus. In this case, I don’t see it as a ‘slight’
benefit, but a standard way of working. When I program patches on an
analog modular synth or connect the components of a sound system,
there’s no restriction as to which end of the patchcord I plug in
first. No inherent reason I can see that Max enforces (as opposed to
merely encourages) it, either.

On Mar 6, 2007, at 1:19 PM, Peter McCulloch wrote:

>
> At the risk of being contrarian, for the slight benefit of being
> able to connect things in reverse order, I think that it is easier
> to learn (and this is highly debatable) when this pattern is
> consistent with signal flow particularly in that it reinforces
> (manually) the flow of the patch.
>

—-
Steven M. Miller

Home < http://pubweb.csf.edu/~smill>
SFIFEM <
http://sfifem.csf.edu>
Atrium Sound Space <
http://atrium.csf.edu>
OVOS <
http://pubweb.csf.edu/~smill/ovos.html>


March 6, 2007 | 10:46 pm

This looks nice…the multiple outlets to multiple inlets workflow
seems like a big improvement. Now, if it could handle inlets to
outlets, we’d be cooking!

On Mar 6, 2007, at 2:46 PM, Tristram Cox wrote:

>
> Well I dont work for cycling, so cant fix that! but i can suggest
> max tool box, its quartered the time it takes for me to make big
> patches, and in this case its easier for connecting multiple outs
> to a single in etc.
>
> You can get it here. Though I’ve often also thought it would be
> lurvley to do things backwards!
>
> http://nat.imeem.com/blogs/areO4MEW
>
> T

—-
Steven M. Miller

Home < http://pubweb.csf.edu/~smill>
SFIFEM <
http://sfifem.csf.edu>
Atrium Sound Space <
http://atrium.csf.edu>
OVOS <
http://pubweb.csf.edu/~smill/ovos.html>


March 7, 2007 | 1:23 am

As I said I couldnt offer more than a suggestion of something to speed things up, alas not the requested feature.

I also agree with Smill, when I was learning max it was a benifit to connect inlets to outlets as is. Just to see the workflow thing but sometimes when connecting several complicated objects together it seems cumbersome to have to work in one direction only. Max toolbox has of course made part of this argument obsolete, once you get the hang of remembering which of the key commands to press (and you do have to use the right one – no undo as its java) it will seemlessly connect say 32 outs to 32 ins – if you can do that, do you really need to reverse the process?

T


March 8, 2007 | 1:03 am

HOLY S$&# this shift click is amazing oh man what the hell I needed this soo badly so many times ahhhhh how did I not know this after 5 years!!!!!!!



_j
March 8, 2007 | 5:37 am

Shift clicking. heh, come on, everyone should know that. Shift clicking is a necessity if you want the patch cord to go back up and around or something spiffy like that. I always felt that segmented patch cords were one of max’s great strengths. But, overusing them can quickly make a patch unreadable. Try and use them sparingly :)

another useful one is the align function.


March 8, 2007 | 6:37 am

Im not talking about segmented patch chords. Read the above posts. You can shift click and plug multiple chords.


March 8, 2007 | 6:49 am

? I think they are reffering to the multi-connect functionality of
pre-shift, clicking an outlet and connecting to many inlets.

heh, come on! :P

On Mar 8, 2007, at 12:37 AM, jamez wrote:

>
> Shift clicking. heh, come on, everyone should know that. Shift
> clicking is a necessity if you want the patch cord to go back up
> and around or something spiffy like that. I always felt that
> segmented patch cords were one of max’s great strengths. But,
> overusing them can quickly make a patch unreadable. Try and use
> them sparingly :)
>
> another useful one is the align function.

v a d e //

http://www.vade.info
abstrakt.vade.info



_j
March 8, 2007 | 8:18 am

I for one, know what he’s refering to. I hold down shift on perhaps 25% of all outlets. However, I don’t use it to connect to multiple sources, rather to invoke segments.


March 8, 2007 | 7:22 pm

Mattijs Kneppers schrieb:
> OMG, I didn’t know about the shift-click routine!! Why does this only
> work when shift is pressed -before- clicking the outlet?? Otherwise I
> would have found it.

For me it does also work after I clicked the outlet…
And that you have to press shift before you click the inlet is obvious…

Stefan


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


March 9, 2007 | 9:30 am

Quote: Stefan Tiedje wrote on Thu, 08 March 2007 20:22
—————————————————-
> For me it does also work after I clicked the outlet…

Oh? For me it really doesn’t.

this is what happens:

1) click outlet – patch cord is created and follows mouse
2) press and hold shift
3) click inlet – patch cord is connected, disappears from mouse

1) press and hold shift
2) click outlet – patch cord is created and follows mouse
3) click inlet – patch cord is connected and new one is created and follows mouse
4) click inlet – patch cord is connected and new one is created and follows mouse
etc..

Same holds for segmented patch cords. So this is different in your setup? On what system are you? I am on mac os 10.4.8, max 4.6.2

Mattijs

> And that you have to press shift before you click the inlet is obvious…
>
> Stefan
>
> —
> Stefan Tiedje————x——-
> –_____———–|————–
> –(_|_ —-|—–|—–()——-
> — _|_)—-|—–()————–
> ———-()——–www.ccmix.com
>
>
—————————————————-


March 14, 2007 | 11:11 am

Mattijs Kneppers schrieb:
> Quote: Stefan Tiedje wrote on Thu, 08 March 2007 20:22
> —————————————————-
>> For me it does also work after I clicked the outlet…
>
> Oh? For me it really doesn’t.
>
> this is what happens:
>
> 1) click outlet – patch cord is created and follows mouse
> 2) press and hold shift
> 3) click inlet – patch cord is connected, disappears from mouse

for me I have to do the click first, before I can press and hold shift.
The reason is probably that I always have "segmented patchcords"
checked, I usually forget that there is an unchecked setting which in my
taste turns patching into a nightmare.

Maybe its time to switch segmenting on, makes life a lot easier. (As
long as you care about nicely aligned patchcords… ;-)

Stefan


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


March 14, 2007 | 12:48 pm

> For me it does also work after I clicked the outlet…
> And that you have to press shift before you click the inlet is obvious…
>
> Stefan

what are you talking about. you just click and hold shift
during a multi connect session, not click shift every time
you connect to another inlet.

-110 (professional shift user)


March 14, 2007 | 1:17 pm

Quote: Stefan Tiedje wrote on Wed, 14 March 2007 12:11
—————————————————-
>
> for me I have to do the click first, before I can press and hold shift.
> The reason is probably that I always have "segmented patchcords"
> checked,

Ok, that explains. I vote for this behaviour (shift after click inlet also enables multiconnect) in non-segmented mode.

> I usually forget that there is an unchecked setting which in my
> taste turns patching into a nightmare.
>
> Maybe its time to switch segmenting on, makes life a lot easier. (As
> long as you care about nicely aligned patchcords… ;-)
>
> Stefan

The reason for me not to turn on segmenting is that it requires one more click when I want to connect without segments.

Mattijs

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


March 14, 2007 | 1:20 pm

Quote: Roman Thilenius wrote on Wed, 14 March 2007 13:48
—————————————————-
> what are you talking about. you just click and hold shift
> during a multi connect session, not click shift every time
> you connect to another inlet.

Hehe, re-read the posts above; it’s about when you have to press shift. In non-segmented mode, pressing shift after clicking the inlet doesn’t enable multiconnect mode, but it should.

>
>
> -110 (professional shift user)
>
>
>
—————————————————-


March 16, 2007 | 8:37 am

Mattijs Kneppers schrieb:
> The reason for me not to turn on segmenting is that it requires one
> more click when I want to connect without segments.

The reason why I prefer segmented: I don’t have to hold the button all
the time, much less work than clicking twice, you can also first click
and then start to think about where to connect it…
(I am just too lazy for non-segmented chords…. ;-)

Stefan


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


March 16, 2007 | 9:26 am

Quote: Stefan Tiedje wrote on Fri, 16 March 2007 09:37
—————————————————-
> Mattijs Kneppers schrieb:
> > The reason for me not to turn on segmenting is that it requires one
> > more click when I want to connect without segments.
>
> The reason why I prefer segmented: I don’t have to hold the button all
> the time, much less work than clicking twice, you can also first click
> and then start to think about where to connect it…
> (I am just too lazy for non-segmented chords…. ;-)

I want to do anything that smells like repetitive action -as fast as possible-, preferably with the keyboard. I guess it’s my tracker background. Dunno how I avoided RSI all this time ;)

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


March 16, 2007 | 9:43 am

i don’t use segmented cords much, i get confused when there are many segments going to one inlet and they overlap perfectly, makes it hard to see whats connected to what. i prefer making geometrical spiders webs


March 16, 2007 | 11:35 am

At 9:43 AM +0000 3/16/07, bin ray wrote:
>i don’t use segmented cords much, i get confused when there are many
>segments going to one inlet and they overlap perfectly, makes it
>hard to see whats connected to what.

I second this – although I do use segmented cords periodically, this
is one of the main reasons I don’t like to.

Feature Request: when cords are superimposed, but do NOT go to the
same place, have one cord appear to "jump" over the other – or just
*some* way to distinguish their respective paths (I know about
coloring the patchcords, but sometimes it’s just too tedious to
constantly alter their colors).

Take this hypothetical example – one has no idea what goes to what:

Dan

Dan Nigrin
Defective Records
202 Hack / PC-1600 User / VSTi Host / OMS Convert / Jack OS X / Major
Malfunction
http://www.defectiverecords.com

http://www.jackosx.com


March 16, 2007 | 11:57 am

just bang the upper bang and you’ll emidatly see where it goes

sorry about the total lack of humor

best

pieter

On 16 Mar 2007, at 12:35, Dan Nigrin wrote:

> At 9:43 AM +0000 3/16/07, bin ray wrote:
>> i don’t use segmented cords much, i get confused when there are
>> many segments going to one inlet and they overlap perfectly, makes
>> it hard to see whats connected to what.
>
> I second this – although I do use segmented cords periodically,
> this is one of the main reasons I don’t like to.
>
> Feature Request: when cords are superimposed, but do NOT go to the
> same place, have one cord appear to "jump" over the other – or just
> *some* way to distinguish their respective paths (I know about
> coloring the patchcords, but sometimes it’s just too tedious to
> constantly alter their colors).
>
> Take this hypothetical example – one has no idea what goes to what:
>
> >
> Dan
> —
> Dan Nigrin
> Defective Records
> 202 Hack / PC-1600 User / VSTi Host / OMS Convert / Jack OS X /
> Major Malfunction
> http://www.defectiverecords.com
> http://www.jackosx.com
>


March 16, 2007 | 6:50 pm

> Hehe, re-read the posts above; it’s about when you have to press shift. In non-segmented mode, pressing shift after clicking the inlet doesn’t enable multiconnect mode, but it should.
>

i overlooked that stefan is one of those sissies who actually
use segmented as default.

-110 *bauhaus style forever*


March 16, 2007 | 7:32 pm

The Shift-click tip has been waiting patiently
for you for years, sitting quietly in the Extras>Tips
patch in Max, where you might run into it even if you
don’t believe reading documents.


March 16, 2007 | 10:25 pm

Quote: Gregory Taylor wrote on Fri, 16 March 2007 20:32
—————————————————-
> The Shift-click tip has been waiting patiently
> for you for years, sitting quietly in the Extras>Tips
> patch in Max, where you might run into it even if you
> don’t believe reading documents.
>
>
—————————————————-

Haha, that connects beautifully with the latest posts on your sticky thread.

I think cycling would do everyone a great favor by simply making a short list of all the available resources ordered by importance, right under the ‘Support -> Documentation’ link on this website.

Cheers,
Mattijs



_j
March 17, 2007 | 12:44 am

Quote: Roman Thilenius wrote on Fri, 16 March 2007 11:50
—————————————————-
>
>
>
>
> > Hehe, re-read the posts above; it’s about when you have to press shift. In non-segmented mode, pressing shift after clicking the inlet doesn’t enable multiconnect mode, but it should.
> >
>
>
> i overlooked that stefan is one of those sissies who actually
> use segmented as default.
>
>
> -110 *bauhaus style forever*
—————————————————-

that option should be disabled!!!


March 17, 2007 | 6:37 am

Dan Nigrin wrote:
>
> Take this hypothetical example – one has no idea what goes to what:

I don’t understand why people insist on using segmented cords that way.
This boneheaded stuff even shows up in example patches. It makes no
sense… and as a form+function person, I don’t even find it visually
pleasant. It’s offensively obscure.

I have segmented patch cords turned on all the time. But this does not
mean I use segmentation all the time – far from it. Nothing stops me
from clicking outlet, clicking inlet, thereby creating a nice diagonal
which clearly shows the flow. (RSI sufferers: I find the click-click
method much easier on my mouse/trackpad arm than the click- drag-
release tension exercise… yet another reason I *don’t* have RSI.)

When I need to keep track of various sets of cords, segmentation is
wonderful. When I need to delineate a bit of logic, segmentation is
wonderful. When I need to emphasize flow, I just don’t use it. The
intentful use of non-segmentation adds major emphasis to a few
particular patch structures and it’s very useful when going back to look
at an old piece of work.

Everybody should patch just like me. Except: please make better
patches. ;)


March 17, 2007 | 7:39 am


March 17, 2007 | 11:30 am

At 10:37 PM -0800 3/16/07, dlurk wrote:
>Dan Nigrin wrote:
>>
>>Take this hypothetical example – one has no idea what goes to what:
>
>I don’t understand why people insist on using segmented cords that
>way. This boneheaded stuff even shows up in example patches. It
>makes no sense… and as a form+function person, I don’t even find
>it visually pleasant. It’s offensively obscure.

I agree fully, and I patch like you. ;-)

That said, I still find many instances in which non-segmented cords
don’t work well because of visual clutter, but the segmented ones
also do not non-ambiguously show the signal flow. It’s in these
cases that I wish for something more/different…

Dan

Dan Nigrin
Defective Records
202 Hack / PC-1600 User / VSTi Host / OMS Convert / Jack OS X / Major
Malfunction
http://www.defectiverecords.com

http://www.jackosx.com



_j
March 17, 2007 | 4:04 pm



f
March 17, 2007 | 5:32 pm

there was an interesting discussion on the pd list some years ago.
iirc, they deliberately choose not to implement patchcord
segmentation, because not having them sort of forces you to
encapsulate. there’s critical limit how many cords you can fit in
one window without segmentation. harsh but perhaps this leads to
more modular patches in the end.
(i myself really like them right angles.)
_f

Am 17.03.2007 um 12:30 schrieb Dan Nigrin:

> At 10:37 PM -0800 3/16/07, dlurk wrote:
>> Dan Nigrin wrote:
>>>
>>> Take this hypothetical example – one has no idea what goes to what:
>>
>> I don’t understand why people insist on using segmented cords that
>> way. This boneheaded stuff even shows up in example patches. It
>> makes no sense… and as a form+function person, I don’t even find
>> it visually pleasant. It’s offensively obscure.
>
> I agree fully, and I patch like you. ;-)
>
> That said, I still find many instances in which non-segmented cords
> don’t work well because of visual clutter, but the segmented ones
> also do not non-ambiguously show the signal flow. It’s in these
> cases that I wish for something more/different…

#|
fredrikolofsson.com klippav.org musicalfieldsforever.com
|#



_j
March 17, 2007 | 6:47 pm

well, you don’t take away patch chords, because, if you’re slick, you can use them moderately and make your patch more readable than being forced not to use them. Personally, I hate Pd for not having segments. They’re so useful, just not to be abused. Ive seen patches that make no sense either way. An example of a really messy patch that could use segmentation and encapsulation would be like, anything by jhno haha. And, on the flipside i’ve abused segments to the point where I could figure out what was connected to what because they overlap.


March 17, 2007 | 8:51 pm

Segmented is great for some things and not for others. How they overlap when going into inlets can cause confusion. But I do like the increased ability to draw them however you want, plus dragging the corners around after they’re done.

RSI is a big problem, particularly in Max. The shift option is great to alleviate this, as is the Max toolbox…

Personally, I use a regular mouse for the right hand, and a trackball for the left. I don’t use the trackball, I just have those big buttons available to be held down by the left hand while dragging. Takes all the stress off the right hand and works great. An extra 20 bucks and your hands will thank you.

–CJ



_j
March 17, 2007 | 9:16 pm

how many cases of max related RSI have been reported?


March 18, 2007 | 2:55 am

Quote: jamez wrote on Sat, 17 March 2007 15:16
—————————————————-
> how many cases of max related RSI have been reported?
—————————————————-

i have some reports about autism, and many about serious addiction.

whats RSI?


March 18, 2007 | 3:11 am

>
> that option should be disabled!!!
>

which one, the french sissie option or 110.bauhaus option?
they are both hard to read if your own style is a third …
like dlurk said: "Everybody should patch just like me" – right on.

there is one style of segmenting which i saw in some old
help file from peter castine (see picture).that would be nice
default cord behavior!


March 18, 2007 | 5:18 am

Um, this topic is way old by now. but!! i have segmented patch cord perminently on as it keeps things way way neat.

while we on the topic of suggesting new functionalities for max. A zoom object similar to touch designer would be fantastic. if you have a high resolution it’s almost impossible to see max patches properly.

adamx


March 18, 2007 | 5:20 am

Um, this topic is way old by now. but!! i have segmented patch cord perminently on as it keeps things way way neat.

while we on the topic of suggesting new functionalities for max. A zoom object similar to touch designer would be fantastic. if you have a high resolution it’s almost impossible to see max patches properly.

adamx


March 18, 2007 | 6:23 am

On Mar 17, 2007, at 8:11 PM, Roman Thilenius wrote:

> there is one style of segmenting which i saw in some old
> help file from peter castine (see picture).that would be nice
> default cord behavior!
>
>
>

Seconded! I got this idea from Peter’s help files, too. I would
love to see this as default behavior for cords crossing at right
angles. I tend to use this and cord color to disambiguate, so my
future selves will have an easier time getting sorted. An automatic
little "Castine hop" would be brilliant.

Vlad

Vlad Spears
Urbi et orbi

http://www.daevlmakr.com

http://www.2secondfuse.com


March 18, 2007 | 11:33 am

>there is one style of segmenting which i saw in some old
>help file from peter castine (see picture).that would be nice
>default cord behavior!

That’s exactly the kind of "jump over" behavior I was trying to describe…

Dan

Dan Nigrin
Defective Records
202 Hack / PC-1600 User / VSTi Host / OMS Convert / Jack OS X / Major
Malfunction
http://www.defectiverecords.com

http://www.jackosx.com


March 18, 2007 | 10:39 pm

love the filename! and – yes, agreed. the circuit diagramming grammar
is good.

Roman Thilenius wrote:
>
> there is one style of segmenting which i saw in some old
> help file from peter castine (see picture).that would be nice
> default cord behavior!



_j
March 19, 2007 | 5:27 am

i’ve patched with a lot of programs, and the patchchords in max are the best i’ve come across. top to bottom, segmented or not… as far as I’m concerned it doesn’t need changing!!!!!!!!!!!!


March 19, 2007 | 9:42 am

I have segmented patch cords off (naturally :), but I do use a lot of ctrl-Y on my cords. The majority of the objects will be aligned and the majority of the lines will be ortho, but angled cords are useful as a layer on top of that.

For example, in my current patch all initialization patch cords are unsegmented and gray in color, main processes are black and segmented when not aligned (thank you gate), parameters are colored and segmented. I don’t recommend using too many different flashy colors, I use two at most.

I don’t have a problem only connecting from outlet to inlet. I feel only very little time can be gained by this option.


March 19, 2007 | 4:53 pm

Roman Thilenius schrieb:
> i overlooked that stefan is one of those sissies who actually
> use segmented as default.

Its like your preferred religion, once you converted, you’ll never go
back… ;-)

Stefan


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


March 19, 2007 | 10:46 pm

Dan Nigrin schrieb:
> That said, I still find many instances in which non-segmented cords
> don’t work well because of visual clutter, but the segmented ones also
> do not non-ambiguously show the signal flow. It’s in these cases that I
> wish for something more/different…

My suggestion for something more: select a patch cord, hit tab, and it
will highlight/select the next patch cord connected to the same inlet.
ctrl-tab would switch to the next connected outlet (relative to the
selected cord)

I would also like to be able to make connections while patch cords are
hidden. They can hide themself after I connected them. And of course
layers of patch cords to hide separately would be nice as well…
(For example include/exclude cords to autopattr/preset make things
messy, but do not contain much information about data flow, I’d like to
be able to hide them separately…)

Stefan


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


March 29, 2007 | 7:55 pm

That was also my thought when I made the original post.

On Mar 29, 2007, at 11:34 AM, vade wrote:

> id imagine that the feature would be designed in a way that made
> sense and pre-cluded any inlet to inlet and outlet to outlet
> connections should you chose to reverse your patching connection
> order :)

—-
Steven M. Miller

Home < http://pubweb.csf.edu/~smill>
SFIFEM <
http://sfifem.csf.edu>
Atrium Sound Space <
http://atrium.csf.edu>
OVOS <
http://pubweb.csf.edu/~smill/ovos.html>


March 30, 2007 | 9:24 am

Diemo Schwarz schrieb:
> And while we’re at feature requests, the thing that often jumps to my
> mind while patching is why it shouldn’t be possible to *insert* an
> object into an existing patch chord, while moving the object (first
> in/outlet only, of course). There’ll surely still be an unused modifier
> key to trigger this mode.

I’d love that, it even does not require an unused modifier key. It
should go like that: select a patch cord, hit paste replace, and it will
insert whatever object is in the copy buffer half way between the two
connected objects….

Stefan


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


March 30, 2007 | 9:47 am

That would be fantastic – there have been _many_ times I would like
to have been able to do that.

David

On 30 Mar 2007, at 10:24, Stefan Tiedje wrote:

> . It should go like that: select a patch cord, hit paste replace,
> and it will insert whatever object is in the copy buffer half way
> between the two connected objects….
>
> Stefan


Viewing 50 posts - 1 through 50 (of 50 total)