Bertrand Fraysse

I had no idea on how to name this topic...

But if for exemple I was going from 0 to -2 and then from -2 to -1 it have to output 1.

But if for exemple I was going from 1 to 2 and then from 2 to 1 it have to output 0.

Look at the patches, they are a lot more understandable I think.

The patch contain the to separate algorithm but I don't know how to make the 0 < X < 1 with this technique.

A big thanks to everyone that will search for this problem.

I had no idea on how to name this topic...
Whatever.

When X < 0 it clips to 0.
But if for exemple I was going from 0 to -2 and then from -2 to -1 it have to output 1.

When X > 1 it clips to 1.
But if for exemple I was going from 1 to 2 and then from 2 to 1 it have to output 0.

Look at the patches, they are a lot more understandable I think.
The patch contain the to separate algorithm but I don't know how to make the 0 < X < 1 with this technique.

A big thanks to everyone that will search for this problem.


intelligent-clip-0-1

On May 1, 2008, at 12:53 PM, Bertrand Fraysse wrote:

> Look at the patches, they are a lot more understandable I think.

> The patch contain the to separate algorithm but I don't know how to 

> make the 0 < X < 1 with this technique.

The desired behavior is not clear, at least to me. Wouldn't "split 0. 

On May 1, 2008, at 12:53 PM, Bertrand Fraysse wrote:
> Look at the patches, they are a lot more understandable I think.
>
> The patch contain the to separate algorithm but I don't know how to  
> make the 0 < X < 1 with this technique.

The desired behavior is not clear, at least to me. Wouldn't "split 0.  
1." do what you want?

Chris Muir
cbm@well.com	
http://www.xfade.com

Quote: Bertrand Fraysse wrote on Thu, 01 May 2008 21:53

----------------------------------------------------

> I had no idea on how to name this topic...

> But if for exemple I was going from 0 to -2 and then from -2 to -1 it have to output 1.

> But if for exemple I was going from 1 to 2 and then from 2 to 1 it have to output 0.

am i understanding you correctly that this is the algorithm?

if the number is within range then output the number, 

else (if the number is rising then 1, if the number is falling then 0)

Quote: Bertrand Fraysse wrote on Thu, 01 May 2008 21:53
----------------------------------------------------
> I had no idea on how to name this topic...
> Whatever.
>
> So, i've got an algorithm problem.
>
> When X < 0 it clips to 0.
> But if for exemple I was going from 0 to -2 and then from -2 to -1 it have to output 1.
>
> When X > 1 it clips to 1.
> But if for exemple I was going from 1 to 2 and then from 2 to 1 it have to output 0.

am i understanding you correctly that this is the algorithm? 

if the number is within range then output the number, 
   else (if the number is rising then 1, if the number is falling then 0) 

i forgot the split object.. saves quite some typing..

No, it's not the idea. It's a lot more complicated in fact.

The main point is to clip the number between 0 and 1.

It's pretty hard to explain, and even harder to program.

Good luck on this, If anyone have an idea.

No, it's not the idea. It's a lot more complicated in fact.
In fact, I think it's impossible...

When I'm rising above 1 it clips
For example I'm going from 1 to 10
> The output number is 1
But if I finally go down from 10 to 9.5
> The output number is 0.5

When I'm going under 0 it clips
For example I'm going from 0 to -10
> The output number is 0
But if I finally go from -10 to -9.5
> The output number is 0.5

It's pretty hard to explain, and even harder to program.
Good luck on this, If anyone have an idea.


On May 2, 2008, at 5:08 PM, Bertrand Fraysse wrote:

> It's pretty hard to explain, and even harder to program.

I agree w/ Jean-Francois that the description is still sort of vague.

On May 2, 2008, at 5:08 PM, Bertrand Fraysse wrote:
> It's pretty hard to explain, and even harder to program.

On May 2, 2008, at 9:20 PM, Chris Muir wrote:

Actually, that was more complicated than it needed to be. Try this one 

On May 2, 2008, at 9:20 PM, Chris Muir wrote:
> Is this sort of what you had in mind?

Actually, that was more complicated than it needed to be. Try this one  
instead:

i recently upgraded to max 5. i can't get any of my patches to output 

audio. i tried the audio tester and that works. i looked at dac~ and 

made sure my interface was selected and audio was "on" I put in an 

audio meter and I can see a signal, i just can't hear one. is there 

something new in max 5 or do i have to do something else?

also, all the jitter objects aren't showing up in the object palette 

but i can see them in the externals folder.

if anyone has some suggestions they would be greatly appreciated.

i recently upgraded to max 5. i can't get any of my patches to output  
audio. i tried the audio tester and that works. i looked at dac~ and  
made sure my interface was selected and audio was "on" I put in an  
audio meter and I can see a signal, i just can't hear one. is there  
something new in max 5 or do i have to do something else?

also, all the jitter objects aren't showing up in the object palette  
but i can see them in the externals folder.

Quote: Chris Muir wrote on Fri, 02 May 2008 23:13

> On May 2, 2008, at 9:20 PM, Chris Muir wrote:

> > Is this sort of what you had in mind?

Great ! This is exactly what I had in mind. But now, do you have an idea on how to reset the system ?

To output 0.5 when I'm on 0.5 even If It was outputing 0.5 at 4.5

Quote: Chris Muir wrote on Fri, 02 May 2008 23:13
----------------------------------------------------
>
> On May 2, 2008, at 9:20 PM, Chris Muir wrote:
> > Is this sort of what you had in mind?

Ok here is the version with Reset Possibilities.

Ok here is the version with Reset Possibilities.
Thank you all for your help making this.

> Good luck on this, If anyone have an idea.

If Chris version was the correct interpretation, I have another version. 

As you see, even if it sounds complicated, there are a lot of paths to 

Bertrand Fraysse schrieb:
> It's pretty hard to explain, and even harder to program.
> Good luck on this, If anyone have an idea.

If Chris version was the correct interpretation, I have another version. 
As you see, even if it sounds complicated, there are a lot of paths to 
rome...

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


> Great ! This is exactly what I had in mind. But now, do you have an

> To output 0.5 when I'm on 0.5 even If It was outputing 0.5 at 4.5

Bertrand Fraysse schrieb:
> Great ! This is exactly what I had in mind. But now, do you have an
> idea on how to reset the system ?
>
> To output 0.5 when I'm on 0.5 even If It was outputing 0.5 at 4.5

Intelligent [Clip 0. 1.]