max 5 new feature videos

Oct 5, 2007 at 11:10pm

max 5 new feature videos

amazing job, max 5 looks very nice and neat
file browser window, i think it would be great if one could embed it in a bpatcher (most probably not possible)..this one because when using jitter opening a dialog window will stop movie playback and thats not good
best
michele

#33997
Oct 6, 2007 at 12:20am

I agree! The features looked really incredible. However, I wasn’t too into
the way the objects looked in the gui itself. Just a bit too rounded and,
er, “friendly”. I’m curious to see how one could pull off the very ‘tight’
gui’s that I’ve seen in a lot of good and free patches such as Forester.

On 10/5/07, mic wrote:
>
>
> amazing job, max 5 looks very nice and neat
> file browser window, i think it would be great if one could embed it in a
> bpatcher (most probably not possible)..this one because when using jitter
> opening a dialog window will stop movie playback and thats not good
> best
> michele
>
>

#114047
Oct 6, 2007 at 1:56am

These basic “show and tell” teasers are great! Presentation mode is
just a wonderfully simple solution!! Well done! Excited to get my
hands on it.

!!!
john

On Oct 5, 2007, at 4:10 PM, mic wrote:

>
> amazing job, max 5 looks very nice and neat
> file browser window, i think it would be great if one could embed
> it in a bpatcher (most probably not possible)..this one because
> when using jitter opening a dialog window will stop movie playback
> and thats not good
> best
> michele
>

#114048
Oct 6, 2007 at 2:00am

At 5:20 PM -0700 10/5/07, Nic Zwart wrote:
>I agree! The features looked really incredible. However, I wasn’t too into the way the objects looked in the gui itself. Just a bit too rounded and, er, “friendly”. I’m curious to see how one could pull off the very ‘tight’ gui’s that I’ve seen in a lot of good and free patches such as Forester.

Well, several of the UI objects have a checkbox in their inspector that enables “classic appearance”, which uses the old bitmaps. These aren’t as pretty when zoomed in, but they still work. Imported Max4 patches use the classic appearance, by default.

In general things take a similar amount of screen real estate, although the new objects look better with a little breathing room around them.

I think that you will be able to accomplish an equally crammed UI in Max 5, as you can do in Max 4, if you want to.

Keep in mind that several types of object can be more freely resized now, that were a fixed size in Max 4 (e.g. keyslider).

-C


Chris Muir | “There are many futures and only one status quo.
cbm@well.com | This is why conservatives mostly agree,
http://www.xfade.com | and radicals always argue.” – Brian Eno

#114049
Oct 6, 2007 at 2:32am

#114050
Oct 6, 2007 at 3:17am

Though I think that Max 5 will definitely allow for more polished
interfaces, I second the concerns with readability. The audio patch
cords in the demo patch are hard to read (for me). If anything is hard
to read when at the computer, it’s doubly problematic to students when
seen on a projector.

I’d be very much in favor of keeping non-ui objects square and doing
the round thing with the ui objects, though this is probably off the
table…

Peter McCulloch

#114051
Oct 6, 2007 at 3:34am

kind of looks a little like jMax too, I think, but I’m very excited,
still. Just an observation. The drag and drop options look amazing.
Can’t wait.

Keith

On 10/5/07, Peter McCulloch

wrote:
> Though I think that Max 5 will definitely allow for more polished
> interfaces, I second the concerns with readability. The audio patch
> cords in the demo patch are hard to read (for me). If anything is hard
> to read when at the computer, it’s doubly problematic to students when
> seen on a projector.
>
> I’d be very much in favor of keeping non-ui objects square and doing
> the round thing with the ui objects, though this is probably off the
> table…
>
> Peter McCulloch
>
>
>


Keith Manlove
(512) 825-9176
keithmanlove@gmail.com

#114052
Oct 6, 2007 at 3:37am

I love the new rounded look. when I watched the videos earlier today I knew that a lot of people would not be in love with new look because it is very rounded, friendly and playful. but i couldn’t be happier. there has not been a software update that i have looked forward to more.

#114053
Oct 6, 2007 at 5:15am

At 11:17 PM -0400 10/5/07, Peter McCulloch wrote:
>Though I think that Max 5 will definitely allow for more polished interfaces, I second the concerns with readability. The audio patch cords in the demo patch are hard to read (for me). If anything is hard to read when at the computer, it’s doubly problematic to students when seen on a projector.

My experience is that after an hour or three of “OMG, it’s different!”, Max 5 seemed pretty natural. Now when I go back to Max 4, it seems relatively crude. If you’re a Mac user, visually, it’s sort of like the transition from OS9 to OS X.

FWIW, I don’t find the audio patchcords harder to use, particularly, than the bumblebee patchcords in Max 4. In fact, I find both styles of patchcords easier on the eyes in Max 5, because they’re anti-aliased.

Also, for projector use, remember that you can zoom in Max 5.

-C


Chris Muir | “There are many futures and only one status quo.
cbm@well.com | This is why conservatives mostly agree,
http://www.xfade.com | and radicals always argue.” – Brian Eno

#114054
Oct 6, 2007 at 7:49am

I almost cried. It’s so so ugly i could kill myself. Do C74 is really
allowed to bring that roundish outfit to our software ? Is there, at
least an option to get rid of this ? Our patches will look like a bunch
of scattered pills or suppositories…

f.e chanfrault | aka | personal computer music
>>>>>>> http://www.personal-computer-music.com
>>>>>>> |sublime music for a desperate people|

#114055
Oct 6, 2007 at 8:08am

On 6 oct. 07, at 05:34, keith manlove wrote:

> kind of looks a little like jMax too, I think

I agree… ;-)

#114056
Oct 6, 2007 at 9:21am

Well, while it is great to see that one can , hopefully, have a multislider displaying values properly, I feel like arriving in aquaworld when I look at the new gui. It simply doesnt look like programming, damm its uninspiring. I dont know how much of the gui can one adjust, but from the comparison of old style ring modulator vs. the new look interface on the presentation, this is what i dont like:

-audio cables are not sometimes readable ner the objects corners,
-round objects look very silly, the old ones really worked
-popup messages are gonna be hiding neighboring objects and should be replaced by a proper info bar at the bottom of the screen. the info bar in max 4 was someties useless, since it was limited to certain amount of characters

Also, I am ot sure why one needs to zoom in and out. i mean, encapsulate, name patcher accordingly and of to the next one,.. one screen, one thought! And thats the reason for the look of the objects. It is to allow for quicker redraws…one step forward, to steps back i think

Other than that, I consider the changes as improvements, i mean the drag and drop, playbar, the databasing.

#114057
Oct 6, 2007 at 9:42am

The padded edges.. just in case we might get hurt.
What is this, Max the mental asylum?

#114058
Oct 6, 2007 at 10:51am

I believe this presentation mode and the file browser are the real kick in.
From what I understand it will be much simpler to organize a working flow, to collect without “collecting” hehehe.

Indeed I will miss the squarey

#114059
Oct 6, 2007 at 11:34am

Square corners, much more easier to the eye, if you hate old style max, look at plogue bidule! These round corners in v5 are just gimmicks which please you in the beginning and after a while you become really tired of it.

Curves are attractive, but if they show off too much , they are also very dumm and not for more than one week.

#114060
Oct 6, 2007 at 11:46am

i agree with itchy

maybe we can suggest to add an old style look feature?

On Oct 6, 2007, at 1:34 PM, itchy wrote:

>
> Square corners, much more easier to the eye, if you hate old style
> max, look at plogue bidule! These round corners in v5 are just
> gimmicks which please you in the beginning and after a while you
> become really tired of it.
>
> Curves are attractive, but if they show off too much , they are
> also very dumm and not for more than one week.
>
>
>

#114061
Oct 6, 2007 at 11:50am

Quote: Jabbo wrote on Sat, 06 October 2007 12:51
—————————————————-
> I believe this presentation mode and the file browser are the real kick in.
> From what I understand it will be much simpler to organize a working flow, to collect without “collecting” hehehe.
>
> Indeed I will miss the squarey

#114062
Oct 6, 2007 at 12:02pm

I would welcome this option of old look (or at least something very close), and it is essentialy what iam trying to say here.

#114063
Oct 6, 2007 at 12:20pm

i think the new look is very ‘slick’, and hopefully doesnt have a
graphic performance tradeoff(in the demo vids, i think the objects
‘float’ to their new position in presentation mode, the objects appear
sluggish while doing this, although it could just be the video
capture/compression)

from people have said you can select a ‘classic’ view for each object,
im assuming they will couple that with a ‘global classic’ view option
in preferences(ala windows xp/vista vs classic view)

like others mentioned im mainly concerned with the performance side of
it, especially with them saying its going to be coded to be
platformless, with then the platform specific stuff added later

i hope that doesnt compromise performance

if it does, even if by a little, thatd be a huge shame, as im sure it
must be horrible to keep coding platform specific changes every
update, but thats what the software business is about

one thing i was really hoping for in the update to max5 is more
‘prebuilt’ type objects, like built in effect objects, although
externals do this, it would be nice to have an ‘intermediate’ step for
people coming from a plugin/reaktoresque background

so until ive read all the research on how to make a reverb, and decide
to tackle it on my own, i can use the builtin reverb~ object etc…

rodrigo

On 10/6/07, itchy wrote:
>
> I would welcome this option of old look (or at least something very close), and it is essentialy what iam trying to say here.
>

#114064
Oct 6, 2007 at 3:31pm

Change = life, max is living, let it grow. Will probably
inspire us all to think about new ideas for patches.

Doesn’t seem to be dumbed down to me, maybe perhaps
adapting to its competitors more (kind of like the animal
kingdom).

-chuck

Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! – their life, your story. Play Sims Stories at Yahoo! Games.

http://sims.yahoo.com/

#114065
Oct 6, 2007 at 3:51pm

I think it looks great, a little to pony, but i don’t mind much…. I absolutely love the presentation view, and i’m guessing that there will be more graphic options in the inspectors,- letting us abandon the curved edges (at least i hope so)….

The filebrowser is brilliant and intelligent !! A feature I have been crying for in a long time !!

I don’t think it is harder to read in any way, we just have to get use to it, and the objects in the background can be shown in classic view anyway, if that is our wish…

I like the new look of the ui objects,- and being able the resize everything is fantastic !
I cannot wait to see more gui objects,- waveform, filtergraph, etc.

We should also remember that this is a new start ! I think it looks like a great platform for further development !

Great work cycling !

#114066
Oct 6, 2007 at 3:59pm

#114067
Oct 6, 2007 at 4:18pm

The old style look can be selected for all objects? not just gui objects?

yes, it seemed rather slugish the response of switching between modes. the mouse moves rather more smoothly on the videos. it ought to be slugish, if you have a lot of objects, i dont think it matters much since you cdont need to switch between modes during performance,

#114068
Oct 6, 2007 at 4:24pm

YES YES YES!!!!!!
I can remember posting a while back asking for a nice pretty new UI and getting all negative response. I still don’t know why people would prefer ugly ass 1980 graphics to gorgeous new looking IPHONE/LIVE/OSX prettiness. I patch for days on end sometimes and shit man it hurts my eyes to look at all that hard edged aliased crap. This rounded and smooth patch cables MMmmmmmmMMMMM!

Im happy, so happy

Whats up with externals though, is everything going to have to be updated again!? It just took 2 years to get all the universal updates and now what, do we have to wait another couple years?!

I hope they make some sound quality improvements on the filters, I was never a fan of the built in filter algorithms.

#114069
Oct 6, 2007 at 4:44pm

At 9:00 AM -0700 10/6/07, David Morneau wrote:
>also, typing “n” to insert a new object at the cursor will be very useful…

This is all subject to change, but -

Single key shortcuts:
b bang button
c comment
f floating point number box
i integer number box
m new message box
n new object
p pop up new object palette
r pop up new object palette with recent tab selected
t toggle box

New object boxes have auto-complete for typing names.

The new object palette allows for tabbing between object category tabs, using arrow keys to select objects, typing the name to select objects.

-C


Chris Muir | “There are many futures and only one status quo.
cbm@well.com | This is why conservatives mostly agree,
http://www.xfade.com | and radicals always argue.” – Brian Eno

#114070
Oct 6, 2007 at 4:48pm

#114071
Oct 6, 2007 at 4:54pm

i think that that’s the last thing the program needs, actually.
there are legions of people posting collections of patches and
shortcuts and externals. i’d rather see cycling in the business of
providing frameworks, instead of fully made solutions.

On Oct 6, 2007, at 8:20 AM, Rodrigo Constanzo wrote:

> one thing i was really hoping for in the update to max5 is more
> ‘prebuilt’ type objects, like built in effect objects, although
> externals do this, it would be nice to have an ‘intermediate’ step for
> people coming from a plugin/reaktoresque background

#114072
Oct 6, 2007 at 5:02pm

Quote: joshua goldberg wrote on Sat, 06 October 2007 12:54
—————————————————-
> i think that that’s the last thing the program needs, actually.
> there are legions of people posting collections of patches and
> shortcuts and externals. i’d rather see cycling in the business of
> providing frameworks, instead of fully made solutions.

I agree !!

#114073
Oct 6, 2007 at 5:20pm

At 10:18 AM -0600 10/6/07, itchy wrote:
>The old style look can be selected for all objects? not just gui objects?

Selected GUI objects only.

>yes, it seemed rather slugish the response of switching between modes. the mouse moves rather more smoothly on the videos. it ought to be slugish, if you have a lot of objects, i dont think it matters much since you cdont need to switch between modes during performance,

Speed-wise, switching in and out of presentation mode in Max 5 doesn’t feel much different than switching in and out of editing mode in Max 4.

-C


Chris Muir | “There are many futures and only one status quo.
cbm@well.com | This is why conservatives mostly agree,
http://www.xfade.com | and radicals always argue.” – Brian Eno

#114074
Oct 6, 2007 at 5:36pm

On 10/6/07, Nicholas C. Raftis III wrote:
> YES YES YES!!!!!!
> I can remember posting a while back asking for a nice pretty new UI and getting all negative response. I still don’t know why people would prefer ugly ass 1980 graphics to gorgeous new looking IPHONE/LIVE/OSX prettiness. I patch for days on end sometimes and shit man it hurts my eyes to look at all that hard edged aliased crap. This rounded and smooth patch cables MMmmmmmmMMMMM!

Word…

> Im happy, so happy

That at least makes two of us… I think Cycling should know. It’s a
bold, NECESSARY move.

> Whats up with externals though, is everything going to have to be updated again!? It just took 2 years to get all the universal updates and now what, do we have to wait another couple years?!

Maybe since the UB thing was such a rush, this time it will different;
release sdk early or something.

> I hope they make some sound quality improvements on the filters, I was never a fan of the built in filter algorithms.

Not to get into this argument again, but I am wondering what kind of
MSP improvements will be going down.


Keith

#114075
Oct 6, 2007 at 5:41pm

Hear hear. ++ etc etc. I fully agree.

On Oct 6, 2007, at 12:54 PM, joshua goldberg wrote:

> i think that that’s the last thing the program needs, actually.
> there are legions of people posting collections of patches and
> shortcuts and externals. i’d rather see cycling in the business of
> providing frameworks, instead of fully made solutions.
>
> On Oct 6, 2007, at 8:20 AM, Rodrigo Constanzo wrote:
>
>> one thing i was really hoping for in the update to max5 is more
>> ‘prebuilt’ type objects, like built in effect objects, although
>> externals do this, it would be nice to have an ‘intermediate’ step
>> for
>> people coming from a plugin/reaktoresque background
>

v a d e //

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

#114076
Oct 6, 2007 at 6:08pm

#114077
Oct 6, 2007 at 6:29pm

i didnt mean that max5 should be a reaktor type thing, but having more
objects/examples of real world applications built in would help with the
steep learning curve

even if only as a buffer before you can start building your own versions of
them, but something like reverb, i have no interest in learning how to build
a good sounding reverb, if its only one small aspect of a patch(which has
nothing to do with spacial design)

as david mentioned in his what it is and isnt post, there arent going to be
many new objects, so what i hoped for isnt happening
he does mention better help files/examples, so perhaps that will be
‘solution’ im(and im sure many other newbies) are looking for

i think what makes max attractive is the object oriented nature of the
program, things are encapsulated, and done for you already, so it makes it
easier to build an end result without having to code, or do needless
building

sure there are tons of externals/abstractions, but those can come with their
own set of problems(and sometimes pricetag)

from the look/support overhaul of the program, it looks like c74 is trying
to make the program easier to learn and use, having more non-base level
objects would be a step in that direction

just my newbie 2cents

On 10/6/07, vade wrote:
>
> Hear hear. ++ etc etc. I fully agree.
> On Oct 6, 2007, at 12:54 PM, joshua goldberg wrote:
>
> i think that that’s the last thing the program needs, actually. there are
> legions of people posting collections of patches and shortcuts and
> externals. i’d rather see cycling in the business of providing
> frameworks, instead of fully made solutions.
>
> On Oct 6, 2007, at 8:20 AM, Rodrigo Constanzo wrote:
>
> one thing i was really hoping for in the update to max5 is more
> ‘prebuilt’ type objects, like built in effect objects, although
> externals do this, it would be nice to have an ‘intermediate’ step for
> people coming from a plugin/reaktoresque background
>
>
>
>
> *v a d e //*
>
> *www.vade.info*
> *abstrakt.vade.info*
>
>
>
>
>
>

#114078
Oct 6, 2007 at 6:45pm

ask yourself this:

if this was really max’s virtue, how would it stack up against
reaktor? or jitter against isidora?

not well. because those programs are specifically designed to do
what you are asking for. max is something more.

On Oct 6, 2007, at 2:29 PM, Rodrigo Constanzo wrote:

> i think what makes max attractive is the object oriented nature of
> the program, things are encapsulated, and done for you already, so
> it makes it easier to build an end result without having to code,
> or do needless building

#114079
Oct 6, 2007 at 7:02pm

I don’t agree.
Pre-built very good quality effects such as reverbs, Eqs, compressors,
delays, and ordinary things like that could be a good way to learn faster
Max Msp.
Access to Max would be possible even to people who don’t know anything
about dsp programming.
Moreover, as someone else has already said, Max Msp filters objects are not
very good, and some externals made by other people are better than those
included with max.
Many people don’t use Max because they don’t know nothing about all these
free third party externals made by people who really use max to work on
their music.
——-
In conclusion, although I like the new UI (the Presentation Mode is really a
great thing), I would like to see Cycling74 working more on improving and
enhancing their externals and GUI objects (like putting reference grids and
numbers on the Filtergraph, with an active cursor also; spline curves for
the envelope editor, etc..), making Max Msp a more versatile and powerful
tool, instead of concentrating on making the UI prettier.
Best,

Carlo Laurenzi

—– Original Message —–
From: “joshua goldberg”
To:
Sent: Saturday, October 06, 2007 6:54 PM
Subject: Re: [maxmsp] Re: Re: max 5 new feature videos

>i think that that’s the last thing the program needs, actually. there are
>legions of people posting collections of patches and shortcuts and
>externals. i’d rather see cycling in the business of providing
>frameworks, instead of fully made solutions.
>
> On Oct 6, 2007, at 8:20 AM, Rodrigo Constanzo wrote:
>
>> one thing i was really hoping for in the update to max5 is more
>> ‘prebuilt’ type objects, like built in effect objects, although
>> externals do this, it would be nice to have an ‘intermediate’ step for
>> people coming from a plugin/reaktoresque background
>

#114080
Oct 6, 2007 at 7:05pm

I completely Agree!

Carlo Laurenzi
I’d like to see more varieties of filters, a vector delay unit for building things like spectral delays, as well as a few more options for delay-line interpolation. A really nice convolution reverb in Max would also be nice, but this might be a bit much…

I think that there are some things like multi-band compressor/limiters that are complex enough to be beyond the range of a lot of people’s expertise (or even simply interests). Furthermore, it’s nice to have things like gizmo~ and the omx library included in the distribution as it means that the object is supported by Cycling ’74, and that it will most likely be compatible with future versions and will be documented in a standardized, centralized way. This is no knock against third-party developers, who have really made a lot of exceptionally cool objects, but just a reflection of how the system is. Objects like fiddle~, pitch~, bonk~, etc. are incredibly useful, and it would be very nice to have more of them included with Max.

One thing that I would really love to see is a solution to the old phasor~ and sah~ loop problem. (changing the speed of phasor once per cycle with sample accuracy) I know there are externals that do this, but it’d be nice to have one that’s in the standard distribution.

my two cents.

Peter McCulloch

#114081
Oct 6, 2007 at 7:22pm

its the opposite, i dont want a glorified effect box, for that id just
use plugs/reaktor

but i dont want to get into a hugely complex thing, like making a nice
reverb, when thats only an aspect of a patch(that has nothing to do
with normal ‘effect processing)

i think the question is how does maxmsp compare to csound, or
supercollider, or c++ or whatever, max is built around having objects
to do specific things for you, without needing to code

if people didnt want the prebuilt objects to handle tasks that they
would otherwise have to program themselves, maxmsp wouldnt exsist

granted, if i was a seasoned maxmsp veteran, id want more features
that appealed to that, but im not, im still learning, so id look for
features that appealed to me

and given teh amount of examples of those type of objects/externals
out there, its not like c74 would waste tons of man hours on this,

On 10/6/07, joshua goldberg wrote:
> ask yourself this:
>
> if this was really max’s virtue, how would it stack up against
> reaktor? or jitter against isidora?
>
> not well. because those programs are specifically designed to do
> what you are asking for. max is something more.
>
> On Oct 6, 2007, at 2:29 PM, Rodrigo Constanzo wrote:
>
> > i think what makes max attractive is the object oriented nature of
> > the program, things are encapsulated, and done for you already, so
> > it makes it easier to build an end result without having to code,
> > or do needless building
>
>

#114082
Oct 6, 2007 at 7:23pm

At 7:29 PM +0100 10/6/07, Rodrigo Constanzo wrote:
>i didnt mean that max5 should be a reaktor type thing, but having more objects/examples of real world applications built in would help with the steep learning curve

Well, my opinion is that for most of the very complex stuff like reverb, the use VST~ with an appropriate plugin is a pretty good solution..

Different programming languages are at different points on the atomic scale, low level < --> high level. Low level languages make you roll your own everything (e.g. the original C language.) High level languages have more complete support for a particular worldview (e.g. Smalltalk.) One is not necessarily better than the other; each language will have benefits for some tasks, and drawbacks for some tasks.

Low level languages allow you to do anything, but you have to do everything yourself.

Higher level languages may allow you to code things faster, as long as the language supports what you’re trying to do.

I would put Max somewhere in the middle of this continuum, with the ability to go lower and higher (writing externals in C, or using VSTs, respectively.)

-C


Chris Muir | “There are many futures and only one status quo.
cbm@well.com | This is why conservatives mostly agree,
http://www.xfade.com | and radicals always argue.” – Brian Eno

#114083
Oct 6, 2007 at 7:43pm

At 10:24 AM -0600 10/6/07, Nicholas C. Raftis III wrote:
>Whats up with externals though, is everything going to have to be updated again!? It just took 2 years to get all the universal updates and now what, do we have to wait another couple years?!

Non-GUI externals should just work as they worked in Max 4.

-C


Chris Muir | “There are many futures and only one status quo.
cbm@well.com | This is why conservatives mostly agree,
http://www.xfade.com | and radicals always argue.” – Brian Eno

#114084
Oct 6, 2007 at 9:55pm

I like the new look.

The main difference is that soon, my patches won’t look as scary as
they do now. Old school, rectangular boxes and messy patchcords always
frighten non-max people. I think most of the users will get used to it
very quickly. OS9 to OSX is good comparison. It took me ages to
switch, but after I did it I didn’t look back.

I must say that new hint/help pop-up windows look to messy to me,
mainly because they appear at different place on the screen every
time. I’d like to have a possibility to switch to something more
conservative, like pop-ups always at the bottom/top.

I hope scheduler/timing issues will get solved or at least improved.

Klif

#114085
Oct 6, 2007 at 11:11pm

There was a thread about this recently on the [dev] list. Max 4.6 and
Max 5 externals are binary compatible, although there are some API
changes. Most externs will work fine, although some (and all UI
objects) will need to be rewritten for the changes to the underlying
API. I’m going to ballpark that 85-90% of existing 4.6.x objects will
continue to work without any changes whatsoever.

jb

Am 06.10.2007 um 19:36 schrieb keith manlove:

> Maybe since the UB thing was such a rush, this time it will different;
> release sdk early or something.

#114086
Oct 7, 2007 at 12:06am

#114087
Oct 7, 2007 at 12:41am

So, I went to AES today and played very quickly with Max 5. I am not
an audio guy (more jitter nerd), but here are my initial thoughts,
and perhaps some “facts” from cycling who were kind enough to answer
some questions I posed. Im sure this is subject to change and is no
way official, and was just about 30 minutes of Q/A with Cycling.

The UI is really really really nice in person (I was a bit skeptical
myself), and Cycling has paid quite a bit of attention to detail, and
it shows. Every aspect is tweaked, seems easy to use and is well
thought out. I very much appreciate the changes. It does strike me as
much more approachable.

I asked about poly~ and its multithreading support, which *only*
applies to MSP~ audio objects. It does not run anything else in other
threads. So no, Jitter users, this is not an easy multithreading
workaround (yeah I thought there was hope).

BPatcher – issues with nested bpatchers and re-drawing glitches
ought to be gone. Bpatchers can apparently also have an alpha with
background color and be tinted, so that they can be overlayed over
other objects and tint background layers and their UI objects. This
sounds useful for UI cues based on color, etc.

Inspectors are totally updated and look quite nice.

The new browser looks quite nice, and I asked that It be an option to
embed in a patcher as an object. Apparently it is built in Max itself
(im not sure if that is correct however), and uses an SQLLite backend
for storing filepaths / objects it finds in the paths you set, so you
can apparently query this DB yourself.

it seemed quite nice and useful.

Now, the sad news seems to be:

The UI requires more horsepower due to the new compositing engine.

Regular objects that used to be skinnable with bitmaps, at least, at
this time are not customizable.

The scheduler remains the same, and no tweaks have been made to the
core engine. This seems like a UI/Facelift, but the internals are the
same.

This is nice for backwards compatibilty and ease of updating, but,
for some reason, it feels like bad news to me.

Anyway, Considering how huge of an update this is, I plan on
reserving any opinion on the shipped Max 5, but I thought some people
would be interested in this.

Thanks,

#114088
Oct 7, 2007 at 1:12am

random question, is max 5 going to do away with the 1000 dollar license fee to sell an applet on windows?

#114089
Oct 7, 2007 at 1:48am

yet another reason to ditch windows…. :P

On Oct 6, 2007, at 9:12 PM, Nicholas C. Raftis III wrote:

>
> random question, is max 5 going to do away with the 1000 dollar
> license fee to sell an applet?
> –
> -=ili!ili=- http://www.Axiom-Crux.net -=ili!ili=-
>

#114090
Oct 7, 2007 at 2:43am

Quote: vade wrote on Sat, 06 October 2007 17:41
—————————————————-
>
> The UI is really really really nice in person (I was a bit skeptical
> myself), and Cycling has paid quite a bit of attention to detail, and
> it shows. Every aspect is tweaked, seems easy to use and is well
> thought out. I very much appreciate the changes. It does strike me as
> much more approachable.

I’ve also seen it in action and think it’s a great improvement. I sort of understand the complaints some people have made about ditching the older look, but I really think this is a necessary step for C74 to stay competitive. Looks *do* matter. But more importantly, the new graphics engine will provide new features and fix existing bugs, such as:

> BPatcher – issues with nested bpatchers and re-drawing glitches
> ought to be gone. Bpatchers can apparently also have an alpha with
> background color and be tinted, so that they can be overlayed over
> other objects and tint background layers and their UI objects. This
> sounds useful for UI cues based on color, etc.

This is great new for me! I have a few projects I started that involved scriptable GUIs in bpatchers and I put them on hold because of redrawing glitches. I can’t wait to follow through on these ideas once things actually work properly.

As for the true transparency support, I really think this will make it possible to do some amazing GUIs in Max. It may be the feature I am most excited about. In the demo I saw, a semi-transparent object was put in front of another object and setup such that mouse clicks passed through the semi-transparent object to the one beneath. Very cool!

> The UI requires more horsepower due to the new compositing engine.

An unfortunate but necessary and expected trade off. I will gladly take a performance hit for transparency support, zooming, and the nicer graphics as long as it is a reasonably small hit. I also wonder since performance mode will typically display only a few objects if it may somewhat compensate for the performance hit? I guess well-designed Max 4 GUIs hide any unnecessary objects, but Max 5 may help avoid drawing unnecessary objects when patching on-the-fly.

-Adam

#114091
Oct 7, 2007 at 2:56am

At 8:41 PM -0400 10/6/07, vade wrote:
>The UI requires more horsepower due to the new compositing engine.

The ship hasn’t sailed on this one. There are still optimizations still being done. I’ve seen dramatic improvements in the last few builds.

>The scheduler remains the same, and no tweaks have been made to the core engine. This seems like a UI/Facelift, but the internals are the same.

I’ve been characterizing this release by using a Devo album title: “Duty Now for the Future.” IMO, this release is all about creating a new stable platform for future development. As I understand it, keeping the old code base up to date with OS and hardware changes was so time consuming that there wasn’t much development time left over to do fundamental engine/architecture changes. The new Max5 platform should be flexible enough to allow for more time spent doing fun development, and less time being spent doing mandatory development.

-C


Chris Muir | “There are many futures and only one status quo.
cbm@well.com | This is why conservatives mostly agree,
http://www.xfade.com | and radicals always argue.” – Brian Eno

#114092
Oct 7, 2007 at 2:59am

At 7:12 PM -0600 10/6/07, Nicholas C. Raftis III wrote:
>random question, is max 5 going to do away with the 1000 dollar license fee to sell an applet?

IIRC, this was a Windows-only fee imposed by the old cross-platform solution that was being used. If that is correct, then I imagine that this fee would go away, but I have no knowledge of this one way or another.

-C


Chris Muir | “There are many futures and only one status quo.
cbm@well.com | This is why conservatives mostly agree,
http://www.xfade.com | and radicals always argue.” – Brian Eno

#114093
Oct 7, 2007 at 3:29am

Yes – the $1000 fee for windows apps will be gone.

-A

#114094
Oct 7, 2007 at 8:47am

On 7 Oct 2007, at 01:41, vade wrote:

> Regular objects that used to be skinnable with bitmaps, at least,
> at this time are not customizable.

Aw … Death of the Image Burger?

– N.

nick rothwell — composition, systems, performance — http://
http://www.cassiel.com

#114095
Oct 7, 2007 at 9:51am

> Now, the sad news seems to be:
>
> The UI requires more horsepower due to the new compositing engine.
>
> Regular objects that used to be skinnable with bitmaps, at least, at
> this time are not customizable.
>
> The scheduler remains the same, and no tweaks have been made to the
> core engine. This seems like a UI/Facelift, but the internals are the
> same.
>
> This is nice for backwards compatibilty and ease of updating, but,
> for some reason, it feels like bad news to me.
>
> Anyway, Considering how huge of an update this is, I plan on
> reserving any opinion on the shipped Max 5, but I thought some people
> would be interested in this.
>
> Thanks,
>

these are bad bad news to me,i was hoping behind pretty face there was some core tweaks :(

#114096
Oct 7, 2007 at 11:12am

#114097
Oct 7, 2007 at 11:49am

Am 07.10.2007 um 04:56 schrieb Chris Muir:

>> The UI requires more horsepower due to the new compositing engine.
>
> The ship hasn’t sailed on this one. There are still optimizations
> still being done. I’ve seen dramatic improvements in the last few
> builds.

This was the only thing worrying me when I saw the nice new features
videos. Glad to hear this is being worked on – please please with sugar
on top make Max 5 a pleasant enviroment even on lower end machines.
Maybe add an option to disable FSAA? :p

g, g.

#114098
Oct 7, 2007 at 5:00pm

On Oct 7, 2007, at 2:51 AM, mic wrote:

> these are bad bad news to me,i was hoping behind pretty face there
> was some core tweaks :(

I suppose it all depends on what one considers to be “Core”. Here’s a
few of the features I personally feel to be “Core” (and even when
they relate to UI, are much more than a “facelift”, as they require
significant infrastructural change):

- multiple undo
- drag + drop
- unicode text support
- long filename support
- JSON human readable/editable patcher format
- configurable keyboard shortcuts
- integrated, in application, searchable object reference
- in application SQLite DB (yes, you can create and manage your own
databases)
- robust html rendering engine in patchers (with patcher interaction
via html JS)
- object sensitive error reporting in max window (with reveal object
in patcher)
- improved debugging window + infrastructure (with message stack
view, reveal object in patcher, “watchpoints” with message history)

For externals developers:
- improvements to the object infrastructure to make things like
attribute exposure, defaults, JSON file saving, inspectors,
generation of object reference templates, etc. happen “automatically”
- XML + JSON file import/export
- crossplatform, antialiased, compositing 2D vector graphics API
(also accessible via JS)

It is also important to note that much of these “Core” improvements
pave the way for additional features + improvements in the future. As
has been mentioned several times, this is very similar to Apple’s
change from OS 9 to OS X or Microsoft’s changes from Windows 95 to XP/
Vista, and with it, we realize that there will be parts of this
transition that are not universally popular (as was the case with
Apple + Microsoft’s changes at the time). C’est la vie.

In the meanwhile, there’s still lots of work for us to do to make
this release as good as possible…stay tuned.

-Joshua

#114099
Oct 7, 2007 at 6:11pm

Thats very true. I suppose for some reason in my head I segregated
the UI from the engine. Thinking about it I guess my only gripe was
the UI in the “main thread” issue plus the statement the UI requires
a bit more CPU usage to run. But I really should reserve any
judgement for the final release. Sorry for seemingly being a downer,
was not my intention, because I actually am quite excited about the
UI stuff, as quality of life is quite important.

I also appreciate the fact that the codebase is more modern and
easier to use, which will let Cycling be more agile, which is
something everyone gains from.

Thanks for the insight.

On Oct 7, 2007, at 1:00 PM, Joshua Kit Clayton wrote:

> I suppose it all depends on what one considers to be “Core”. Here’s
> a few of the features I personally feel to be “Core” (and even when
> they relate to UI, are much more than a “facelift”, as they require
> significant infrastructural change):

v a d e //

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

#114100
Oct 7, 2007 at 7:17pm

Then again, rumors have it that Damian Hirst is looking into Max now…

;-)

Trond

f.e wrote:
> I almost cried. It’s so so ugly i could kill myself. Do C74 is really
> allowed to bring that roundish outfit to our software ? Is there, at
> least an option to get rid of this ? Our patches will look like a bunch
> of scattered pills or suppositories…

#114101
Oct 7, 2007 at 7:20pm

Quote: jkc wrote on Sun, 07 October 2007 10:00
—————————————————-
>
> – in application SQLite DB (yes, you can create and manage your own
> databases)

Cool! I had only heard of the SQLite DB in the context of the new file browser widget. It will be great to use it for arbitrary data too. Coll gets the job done most of the time, but it is a pretty limited data structure.

> – robust html rendering engine in patchers (with patcher interaction
> via html JS)

> – XML + JSON file import/export
> – crossplatform, antialiased, compositing 2D vector graphics API
> (also accessible via JS)

So will you be supporting SVG (as in the standard W3C XML language)? That would be very nice, especially since it sounds completely scriptable.

Anyway, lots of really great changes under the hood. Really exciting stuff IMO. Sounds like almost everyone should be able to find something to be happy about even if there are a few disappointments (which is unavoidable in any software release IMO).

But damn, this is still half a year away? Ok, gotta stop thinking about it ;)

-Adam

#114102
Oct 7, 2007 at 9:29pm

On Oct 7, 2007, at 12:20 PM, Adam Murray wrote:

>
> So will you be supporting SVG (as in the standard W3C XML
> language)? That would be very nice, especially since it sounds
> completely scriptable.

Some SVG support will be present, though I’m not certain if it
supports the complete SVG standard. For example, fpic allows the use
of SVG files, and we may expose the use of SVG from JS/C.

-Joshua

#114103
Oct 7, 2007 at 9:55pm

that sucks, because now my $10,000,000 diamond studded jitter patch
is going to be worth a lot less. damn you to hell, established art
world!

On Oct 7, 2007, at 3:17 PM, Trond Lossius wrote:

> Then again, rumors have it that Damian Hirst is looking into Max
> now…
>
> ;-)
>
> Trond
>
>
> f.e wrote:
>> I almost cried. It’s so so ugly i could kill myself. Do C74 is
>> really allowed to bring that roundish outfit to our software ? Is
>> there, at least an option to get rid of this ? Our patches will
>> look like a bunch of scattered pills or suppositories…
>
>

#114104
Oct 7, 2007 at 10:38pm

On Oct 7, 2007, at 1:48 AM, Nick Rothwell wrote:

>> Regular objects that used to be skinnable with bitmaps, at least,
>> at this time are not customizable.
>
> Aw … Death of the Image Burger?

Or is this about objects like [matrixctrl], [pictctrl] and [pictslider]?

When I watched the new feature videos, I did wonder what the zoomable
interface would do with animation strips rendered at a specific
resolution. Imageburgers are fun, and I use them sometimes in
patches for my own use or that I share with friends, but custom
graphics in the objects above are something I use all the time in
just about everything… I have a hard time imagining Max without
them. Are they coming back?

I *love* the new interface, though. It’s gorgeously modern while
still looking like Max. And all the core improvements and the
capabilities they give to Cycling for future development make the
transition bumps entirely worth it.

Vlad

Vlad Spears
Urbi et orbi

http://www.daevlmakr.com

http://www.2secondfuse.com

#114105
Oct 7, 2007 at 11:18pm

On 10/7/07, Trond Lossius wrote:
> Then again, rumors have it that Damian Hirst is looking into Max now…
>
> ;-)
>
> Trond

I really hope that means there will be a “The Physical Impossibility
of Death in the Mind of Someone Living II” that comes with a max
controlled shark. Assuming there isn’t already a project with max
controlled shark.

Keith

#114106
Oct 8, 2007 at 12:00am

Quote: Andrew Pask wrote on Sun, 07 October 2007 16:29
—————————————————-
> Yes – the $1000 fee for windows apps will be gone.

Argh. Now I have no excuse ;-)

#114107
Oct 8, 2007 at 6:27am

..yeah that’s right..can’t wait to try it ;)

#114108
Oct 9, 2007 at 7:11am

Quote: vade wrote on Sun, 07 October 2007 02:41
—————————————————-

> I asked about poly~ and its multithreading support, which *only*
> applies to MSP~ audio objects. It does not run anything else in other
> threads. So no, Jitter users, this is not an easy multithreading
> workaround (yeah I thought there was hope).
>

Noooooo!

I really thought.. maybe this time… *sniff*

#114109
Oct 9, 2007 at 7:28am

Jitter already has multithreading for many matrix operations.

wes

On 10/9/07, Mattijs Kneppers wrote:
>
> Quote: vade wrote on Sun, 07 October 2007 02:41
> —————————————————-
>
> > I asked about poly~ and its multithreading support, which *only*
> > applies to MSP~ audio objects. It does not run anything else in other
> > threads. So no, Jitter users, this is not an easy multithreading
> > workaround (yeah I thought there was hope).
> >
>
> Noooooo!
>
> I really thought.. maybe this time… *sniff*
>
>
> –
> SmadSteck – http://www.smadsteck.nl
> Hard- and software for interactive audiovisual sampling
>

#114110
Oct 9, 2007 at 9:05am

Quote: wesley.hoke@gmail.com wrote on Tue, 09 October 2007 09:28
—————————————————-
> Jitter already has multithreading for many matrix operations.
>
> wes

That’s right wes but, as you have seen, the stuff we do is mostly about flinging around lots of data. Since event handling, gui updates and jitter rendering are all in one thread, to improve our framerates we need a way to separate data management and user interfaces in different threads. The only way to do this currently is to open multiple instances of max and communicate via a network protocol, and it would be so nice not to have to do that.

To put it very simple: right now, while I’m typing this, I have 4 2.66 GHz cores all running at 30% with a framerate of 20 out of 50. And the bottleneck is not on the graphics card.

I know that it would be really difficult to create a system that separates event handling in different parts of patches into different threads. I just envisioned (wishful thinking, I know ;) that the upgrade to poly~ would be just that.

Mattijs

#114111
Oct 9, 2007 at 9:28am

Ah, ok. I was thinking you were refering to polyphony multithreading
for jitter operations not messaging.

wes

On 10/9/07, Mattijs Kneppers wrote:
>
> Quote: wesley.hoke@gmail.com wrote on Tue, 09 October 2007 09:28
> —————————————————-
> > Jitter already has multithreading for many matrix operations.
> >
> > wes
>
> That’s right wes but, as you have seen, the stuff we do is mostly about flinging around lots of data. Since event handling, gui updates and jitter rendering are all in one thread, to improve our framerates we need a way to separate data management and user interfaces in different threads. The only way to do this currently is to open multiple instances of max and communicate via a network protocol, and it would be so nice not to have to do that.
>
> To put it very simple: right now, while I’m typing this, I have 4 2.66 GHz cores all running at 30% with a framerate of 20 out of 50. And the bottleneck is not on the graphics card.
>
> I know that it would be really difficult to create a system that separates event handling in different parts of patches into different threads. I just envisioned (wishful thinking, I know ;) that the upgrade to poly~ would be just that.
>
> Mattijs
> –
> SmadSteck – http://www.smadsteck.nl
> Hard- and software for interactive audiovisual sampling
>

#114112
Oct 9, 2007 at 11:48am

There are definitely lots of things to get excited about in the new release, and I can’t wait to get my hands on it.

I don’t mind the new look on the whole, but I’ve got to chip in on the rounded corners thing. For me this is a real problem in terms of, for want of a better word, ’tiling’:

Maybe this is a matter of individual patching style, but I’m often lining up a whole bunch of objects in a row, column or grid – toggles, bangs, number boxes, faders, even messages. With the rounded corners this will look TERRIBLE.

Just to be clear – I’m not objecting to the new look on general aesthetic grounds, just the round corners for this very specific reason. Does anyone else see this as a problem, or is it just me?

#114113
Oct 9, 2007 at 12:18pm

Are you on Mac? If so, try this: select several files in a folder in
the Finder and give them a color label (cmd + I). Now deselect the
files and look at that: a stack of rounded corners. Doesn’t look so
bad, does it? It’s a matter of personal taste, I suppose. If you
really need a more unified look for a bank of controls, you can
probably achieve it with other GUI objects.

On Oct 9, 2007, at 7:48 AM, Joseph Hyde wrote:

>
> Maybe this is a matter of individual patching style, but I’m often
> lining up a whole bunch of objects in a row, column or grid –
> toggles, bangs, number boxes, faders, even messages. With the
> rounded corners this will look TERRIBLE.
>
> Just to be clear – I’m not objecting to the new look on general
> aesthetic grounds, just the round corners for this very specific
> reason. Does anyone else see this as a problem, or is it just me?

#114114
Oct 9, 2007 at 12:23pm

jb

Am 09.10.2007 um 13:48 schrieb Joseph Hyde:

> Maybe this is a matter of individual patching style, but I’m often
> lining up a whole bunch of objects in a row, column or grid –
> toggles, bangs, number boxes, faders, even messages. With the
> rounded corners this will look TERRIBLE.

#114115
Oct 9, 2007 at 12:27pm

Hi everyone

I was wondering if the new Max 5 could have the option “save
project” in order to save a patch with all sub-patches, sounds and
extraobjects. I think this little detail makes us save a big amount
of time.
Thanks for thinking of it
Cheers
Sebastian Rivas,
Ircam
1 place Igor-Stravinsky F-75004 Paris
Tel +33 (0)1 44 78 48 43
Fax +33 (0)1 44 78 15 60
GSM +33(0)6 63 70 19 36
Sebastian.Rivas@ircam.fr

http://www.myspace.com/sebastienrivas

#114116
Oct 9, 2007 at 2:08pm

I have a major problem with the new look.
I despise the rounded edges.
I will never become accustomed to this.

Max is a programming language,
I use it like a language.
I use it something like how I’d use notepad++.
Obviously Max is a different way of thinking, but the hard edges are very important for programming style.
They allow for a WAY of programming.
Don’t take away the way.
One thing I love to do is have one pixel of space in between two objects. Max4 looks freakin’ awesome!
I love my alignments of little things in Max4.
I love pixels, and single-pixel-wide wires.
I align up boxes as if they were characters of code in a text editor.
I know it’s not actually like that, but that’s the only way I can think to describe this idea with something you might be able to relate to.
The hard edges are part of Max’s SYNTACTICAL STYLE.
The edges themselves create an instantaneous ruler you can follow across with your eyes without thinking about it.
My brain is actually physically wired internally to match the way that max wires and object boxes flow and align.
You are going to break my brain.
When edges are rounded, you will constantly second-guess yourself about whether something is aligned or not.
A crosshair doesn’t help.
Maybe it is perfectly aligned, but the round edges play tricks on you.
They’re bad for programming.

It’s something like this:
You’ve been coding in a language for years and you love to do:

f(x)
{
….r->n(x);
}

style syntax.

All of a sudden somebody comes along and tells you all future versions of the language will only support:

..f(x)
….{
r->n(x);
….}

style syntax.

And now you are real pissed off.
I got a message in the middle of the night from a buddy angry about the new edges.

I’ve read how you’ll support “old max” rendering.
I don’t want that! That’s terrible. That’s a hack.
I want the new Max, but with hard edges.
Allow the new Max to use the killer new 2d vector api but put to use with a Max-style configuration — at default zoomlevel: possible to have single pixel wide yet antialiased wires, single pixel wide borders on objects, and allow us to space objects apart by one pixel.

It looks like everything is getting fat.
And you are breaking syntax.

Yours,
- Invect

#114117
Oct 9, 2007 at 2:36pm

Sorry, but that’s simply absurd. If you don’t like the new look,
that’s fine. But to insist that round edges affect your expressive
abilities? Sorry, no.

In addition to new round edges, Max 5 will offer a number of feature
which will improve your productivity and expressivity.

We welcome the criticism from pro- and contra- new look factions,
though they will not likely influence the design at this stage in the
game. I don’t mean that to sound harsh — it’s simply the truth of
the matter.

jb

Am 09.10.2007 um 16:08 schrieb Zola:

> I have a major problem with the new look.
> I despise the rounded edges.
> I will never become accustomed to this.
>
> Max is a programming language,
> I use it like a language.
> I use it something like how I’d use notepad++.
> Obviously Max is a different way of thinking, but the hard edges
> are very important for programming style.

#114118
Oct 9, 2007 at 2:38pm

#114119
Oct 9, 2007 at 2:41pm

Quote: Jeremy Bernstein wrote on Tue, 09 October 2007 08:36
—————————————————-
> Sorry, but that’s simply absurd. If you don’t like the new look,
> that’s fine. But to insist that round edges affect your expressive
> abilities? Sorry, no.

Absolutely!
That is precisely what I am saying.
Load up a cursive font in your text editor,
and get some work done for a few days.

#114120
Oct 9, 2007 at 3:12pm

;
max setcornerradius 0.5

Yes, that’s what’s wonderful about vector graphics. Cycling could easily allow us to set just exactly how edgey or soft we want it; it’s vector! We could set the radius, or a radius of 0.0 to have hard edges.

I actually really like the new look for many reasons. Aesthetically it’s well integrated. It was neat watching the little bang button blink. (It was saying hello.)

As long as 1 pixel borders and wires are not lost.

#114121
Oct 9, 2007 at 3:35pm

I agree with Zola that the new interface will make a difference, comparable with a change of syntax, perhaps even comparable with a switch from javascript to lua. ;)

But I do not agree per se that this change is a negative one. I too have always felt most comfortable when there is 1 pixel in between my objects and they are all strictly aligned. But for some time now I have been thinking that I should change my ‘way’ and start to put more space in between my objects and use less objects in one subpatch. Just to make my patch more readable.

Naturally, this means that I’ll need much more subpatchers. With the direct consequence that to avoid connecting much more patch cords, I’ll have to use much more receives. Using much more receives means I’ll have a much bigger problem not letting the global names get in each others way. Ergo…ooOO (fill in the gaps).

Btw Zola, are you aware that the people of a more artistic background (which probably vastly outnumber the 1-pixel-between-aligned-objects-maxers on this list) will all think we’re nutcases? Not that I care of course, I’ll continue making bad jokes about atari computers and drinking black coffee as if nothing happened .. ;)

Hey and please be polite to mr Bernstein. I think he’s ok.

Mattijs

#114122
Oct 9, 2007 at 3:50pm

#114123
Oct 9, 2007 at 3:55pm

yes, but not for jit.qt.movie :) Sorry i should have been more specific.

On Oct 9, 2007, at 3:28 AM, Wesley Smith wrote:

> Jitter already has multithreading for many matrix operations.
>
> wes
>
> On 10/9/07, Mattijs Kneppers wrote:
>>
>> Quote: vade wrote on Sun, 07 October 2007 02:41
>> —————————————————-
>>
>>> I asked about poly~ and its multithreading support, which *only*
>>> applies to MSP~ audio objects. It does not run anything else in
>>> other
>>> threads. So no, Jitter users, this is not an easy multithreading
>>> workaround (yeah I thought there was hope).
>>>
>>
>> Noooooo!
>>
>> I really thought.. maybe this time… *sniff*
>>
>>
>> –
>> SmadSteck – http://www.smadsteck.nl
>> Hard- and software for interactive audiovisual sampling
>>

v a d e //

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

#114124
Oct 9, 2007 at 3:59pm

I swear we must be mind twins. MIND TWINS I SAY!

On Oct 9, 2007, at 11:35 AM, Mattijs Kneppers wrote:

> (which probably vastly outnumber the 1-pixel-between-aligned-
> objects-maxers on this list)

v a d e //

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

#114125
Oct 9, 2007 at 4:09pm

>>I got a message in the middle of the night from a buddy angry about the new edges.

I hate it when that happens.

I never realized how much people love their little islands of OS9, floating around in the big bad ocean of contemporary OS.

>>It looks like everything is getting fat.

That’s because the display industry is over-producing pixels; if we don’t find some way to consume them all, there will be a pixel glut, and that would be tragic.

Re this thread: Is it possible to beat a dead horse before it’s even been born?

#114126
Oct 9, 2007 at 4:21pm

something i am hoping for too…

the whole project management needs an upgrade (or rather an
implementation, since there is none today) but i can’t think that c74
(with ableton) have not taken this on… so i am hoping and expecting
something.

t.

Am 09.10.2007 um 09:27 schrieb Sebastian.Rivas:

>
> Hi everyone
>
> I was wondering if the new Max 5 could have the option “save
> project” in order to save a patch with all sub-patches, sounds and
> extraobjects. I think this little detail makes us save a big amount
> of time.
> Thanks for thinking of it
> Cheers
> Sebastian Rivas,
> Ircam
> 1 place Igor-Stravinsky F-75004 Paris
> Tel +33 (0)1 44 78 48 43
> Fax +33 (0)1 44 78 15 60
> GSM +33(0)6 63 70 19 36
> Sebastian.Rivas@ircam.fr
>
> http://www.myspace.com/sebastienrivas
>
>
>

#114127
Oct 9, 2007 at 4:39pm

Quote: Mattijs wrote on Tue, 09 October 2007 08:35
—————————————————-
> Naturally, this means that I’ll need much more subpatchers. With the direct consequence that to avoid connecting much more patch cords, I’ll have to use much more receives.

Welcome to my world of nested subpatchers (4, 5, 6 deep)…

As I’ve mentioned before, I rarely use send/receive. Instead, I put values/lists/messages into value objects and colls, and retreive them when needed.

So I’m hoping that Max 5 offers the added functionality to coll that value offers, of finding all instances of that coll throughout the patch.

#114128
Oct 9, 2007 at 4:45pm

#114129
Oct 9, 2007 at 5:33pm

Quote: Zola wrote on Tue, 09 October 2007 09:12
—————————————————-
> ;
> max setcornerradius 0.5
>

#114130
Oct 9, 2007 at 5:48pm

>Sorry, but that’s simply absurd. If you don’t like the new look,
>that’s fine. But to insist that round edges affect your expressive
>abilities? Sorry, no.
>
>In addition to new round edges, Max 5 will offer a number of feature
>which will improve your productivity and expressivity.
>
>We welcome the criticism from pro- and contra- new look factions,
>though they will not likely influence the design at this stage in
>the game. I don’t mean that to sound harsh — it’s simply the truth
>of the matter.

I understand – and of course whatever will be i’ll use it.

but this reminds me when (ircam’s) Patchwork became OpenMusic, with a
fancy rounded look, which did nothing good to the software, which is
not “nice” (even if it pretends to be) just impractical.

coding the same thing is way faster in patchWork than in OpenMusic –
because of the practical look (or the “no-look” of the objects)

now, of course there are things you can not do in PW..

actually PWGL kept the PW look

____anyhow

best

kasper

#114131
Oct 9, 2007 at 6:13pm

Quote: arne wrote on Tue, 09 October 2007 09:39
—————————————————-
> Quote: Mattijs wrote on Tue, 09 October 2007 08:35
> —————————————————-
> > Naturally, this means that I’ll need much more subpatchers. With the direct consequence that to avoid connecting much more patch cords, I’ll have to use much more receives.
>
> Welcome to my world of nested subpatchers (4, 5, 6 deep)…
>
> As I’ve mentioned before, I rarely use send/receive. Instead, I put values/lists/messages into value objects and colls, and retreive them when needed.
>

More subpatches != more sends/receives. This probably means you could be doing things a better way. I now view send/receive as the quick fix that introduces too many problems later.

Personally, I like to design my subpatchers like a function call with a well-defined interface of messages (parameters) it can accept. I try to only use one inlet which immediately goes to a route object. So an oscillator subpatch might expect messages like “freq ” “amp ” “env

“, etc and those values are easily routed where they need to go.

For nested subpatches I just prepend a routing address onto the message, so to introduce polyphony in my example I might use the messages “voice1 freq “, and “voice2 amp “. For more complicated situations I use the CNMAT external OSC-route – it adds wildcards and pseudo-regex style routing possibilities, very useful!

This approach has let me scale small patch experiments into full-fledged applications, as well as making it easy to interconnect patches that were not designed to work together. And I can now open multiple copies of my patches without major malfunction. I couldn’t do that with send/receive. The tradeoff is some extra overhead imposed by lots of routing, but without profiling tools it is hard to know how much this matters.

For passing really large data sets a coll or jit.matrix is better of course, but you still could use the approach I just described to send an “update” message after changing the coll.

Adam

#114132
Oct 9, 2007 at 6:21pm

“no-look” …please

#114133
Oct 9, 2007 at 6:52pm

I would also like to see this feature.

Chris

Quote: tatama suomo wrote on Tue, 09 October 2007 10:21
—————————————————-
> something i am hoping for too…
>
> the whole project management needs an upgrade (or rather an
> implementation, since there is none today) but i can’t think that c74
> (with ableton) have not taken this on… so i am hoping and expecting
> something.
>
> t.
>
>
> Am 09.10.2007 um 09:27 schrieb Sebastian.Rivas:
>
> >
> > Hi everyone
> >
> > I was wondering if the new Max 5 could have the option “save
> > project” in order to save a patch with all sub-patches, sounds and
> > extraobjects. I think this little detail makes us save a big amount
> > of time.
> > Thanks for thinking of it
> > Cheers
> > Sebastian Rivas,
> > Ircam
> > 1 place Igor-Stravinsky F-75004 Paris
> > Tel +33 (0)1 44 78 48 43
> > Fax +33 (0)1 44 78 15 60
> > GSM +33(0)6 63 70 19 36
> > Sebastian.Rivas@ircam.fr
> >
> > http://www.myspace.com/sebastienrivas
> >
> >
> >
>
>
—————————————————-

#114134
Oct 9, 2007 at 7:17pm

My only fear from this sort of a feature is that you may end up with
many different versions of externals floating around your search path.

Im sure something can be worked out so that if more than one version
of an external is found, only the one in the project path is loaded?

Im sure there are some hidden landmines with this sort of a feature
though, that would result in hours of lost time debugging only to
realize, doh, thats the object version from two YEARS ago!

(or maybe not, im already speculating on bugs on imaginary feature
requests, christ, I am a cynic).

On Oct 9, 2007, at 2:52 PM, Chris Hipgrave wrote:

>
> I would also like to see this feature.
>
> Chris
>
> Quote: tatama suomo wrote on Tue, 09 October 2007 10:21
> —————————————————-
>> something i am hoping for too…
>>
>> the whole project management needs an upgrade (or rather an
>> implementation, since there is none today) but i can’t think that c74
>> (with ableton) have not taken this on… so i am hoping and expecting
>> something.
>>
>> t.
>>
>>
>> Am 09.10.2007 um 09:27 schrieb Sebastian.Rivas:
>>
>>>
>>> Hi everyone
>>>
>>> I was wondering if the new Max 5 could have the option “save
>>> project” in order to save a patch with all sub-patches, sounds and
>>> extraobjects. I think this little detail makes us save a big amount
>>> of time.
>>> Thanks for thinking of it
>>> Cheers
>>> Sebastian Rivas,
>>> Ircam
>>> 1 place Igor-Stravinsky F-75004 Paris
>>> Tel +33 (0)1 44 78 48 43
>>> Fax +33 (0)1 44 78 15 60
>>> GSM +33(0)6 63 70 19 36
>>> Sebastian.Rivas@ircam.fr
>>>
>>> http://www.myspace.com/sebastienrivas
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
> —————————————————-
>
>

v a d e //

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

#114135
Oct 9, 2007 at 8:55pm

#114136
Oct 9, 2007 at 9:44pm

Hi,

I also would like the possibility to have square edges (a global
parameter?). Sometimes when you need access to many parameters it is handy
to be able to have GUI objects touching each other in order to save screen
space. And I agree with the comment that it would look ugly with round
edges.

Also there was a very clear distinction between messages boxes (a single
line) and objects boxes (a double line). This seems to have unfortunately
disappeared in MAX 5. To me this is less readable, and it reminds me of the
confusion that I always disliked in PD.

The other concern is that the round edges induce shift in the position and
spacing of the inlets and outlets.
The ring modulator example shows how the neat parts of the original patch
become a mess in the new version.
Being someone who has been working for many years with Max/MSP, and having a
big library of abstractions I reuse, I don’t like the fact that all those
painstakingly aligned and resized objects will suddenly look like a total
mess.
Could there please be a global parameter that would allow to keep, if not
exactly the old look, at least the same sizes and spacing between inlets and
outlets so that old patch remain clear and readable?
It would take a considerable amount of energy to have to rearrange all the
older abstractions…

Best,
Todor

_________________________________________
Web: http://www.compositeurs.be/Todoroff.html

> Maybe this is a matter of individual patching style, but I’m often lining up a
> whole bunch of objects in a row, column or grid – toggles, bangs, number
> boxes, faders, even messages. With the rounded corners this will look
> TERRIBLE.
>
> Just to be clear – I’m not objecting to the new look on general aesthetic
> grounds, just the round corners for this very specific reason. Does anyone
> else see this as a problem, or is it just me?

#114137
Oct 9, 2007 at 10:51pm

I’m busy working on a stand-alone for a (non-techie) client right now, and
have a very short deadline. Just last week, I was thinking “I wish the Max
object gui wasn’t so freaking dated looking” – as I don’t have much time to
come up with an interface. This new Max 5 interface (plus presentation
mode) would really, really do the trick!

Ps: I think it’s lovely, too. I loved the Mac OS 7,8,9 gui back when they
were contemporary, but never looked back after using OS X’s Aqua, and that’s
what this debate reminds me of…

On 10/10/07, Todor Todoroff wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I also would like the possibility to have square edges (a global
> parameter?). Sometimes when you need access to many parameters it is handy
> to be able to have GUI objects touching each other in order to save screen
> space. And I agree with the comment that it would look ugly with round
> edges.
>
> Also there was a very clear distinction between messages boxes (a single
> line) and objects boxes (a double line). This seems to have unfortunately
> disappeared in MAX 5. To me this is less readable, and it reminds me of
> the
> confusion that I always disliked in PD.
>
> The other concern is that the round edges induce shift in the position and
> spacing of the inlets and outlets.
> The ring modulator example shows how the neat parts of the original patch
> become a mess in the new version.
> Being someone who has been working for many years with Max/MSP, and having
> a
> big library of abstractions I reuse, I don’t like the fact that all those
> painstakingly aligned and resized objects will suddenly look like a total
> mess.
> Could there please be a global parameter that would allow to keep, if not
> exactly the old look, at least the same sizes and spacing between inlets
> and
> outlets so that old patch remain clear and readable?
> It would take a considerable amount of energy to have to rearrange all the
> older abstractions…
>
> Best,
> Todor
>
> _________________________________________
> Web: http://www.compositeurs.be/Todoroff.html
>
>
>
> > Maybe this is a matter of individual patching style, but I’m often
> lining up a
> > whole bunch of objects in a row, column or grid – toggles, bangs, number
> > boxes, faders, even messages. With the rounded corners this will look
> > TERRIBLE.
> >
> > Just to be clear – I’m not objecting to the new look on general
> aesthetic
> > grounds, just the round corners for this very specific reason. Does
> anyone
> > else see this as a problem, or is it just me?
>
>


arliss renwick
http://www.myspace.com/radiopellucid
http://www.flickr.com/photos/east_asia_photo_gallery/

http://picasaweb.google.com/maxmsp/KoreaKoreaKoReverendAlGreen

#114138
Oct 10, 2007 at 1:29am

#114139
Oct 10, 2007 at 1:53am

#114140
Oct 10, 2007 at 2:52am

At 3:53 AM +0200 10/10/07, jln wrote:
>Maybe I misread something, but I think Chris Muir mentioned that GUI objects could be selected to keep their original Max 4 look. Assuming it’ll work for all GUI objects (which is the part of my answer I have a doubt about), it won’t work with non-Gui objects, for sure. Check Chris’ message earlier in this thread to be sure about it.

There are a _few_ object that have a classic appearance option

-C
.

Chris Muir | “There are many futures and only one status quo.
cbm@well.com | This is why conservatives mostly agree,
http://www.xfade.com | and radicals always argue.” – Brian Eno

#114141
Oct 10, 2007 at 2:55am

#114142
Oct 10, 2007 at 3:50am

#114143
Oct 10, 2007 at 7:17am

Well, one of the guys here has spotted an incompatibility issue with the new look(inlets are offset by on pixel). Anyway, it must be good for them to know what current max users think of the changes, or rather that one change, all other updates could not be disappointing.

#114144
Oct 10, 2007 at 8:38am

Quote: adamj wrote on Tue, 09 October 2007 20:13
—————————————————-
> Quote: arne wrote on Tue, 09 October 2007 09:39
> —————————————————-
> > Quote: Mattijs wrote on Tue, 09 October 2007 08:35
> > —————————————————-
> > > Naturally, this means that I’ll need much more subpatchers. With the direct consequence that to avoid connecting much more patch cords, I’ll have to use much more receives.
> >
> > Welcome to my world of nested subpatchers (4, 5, 6 deep)…
> >
> > As I’ve mentioned before, I rarely use send/receive. Instead, I put values/lists/messages into value objects and colls, and retreive them when needed.
> >
>
> More subpatches != more sends/receives. This probably means you could be doing things a better way. I now view send/receive as the quick fix that introduces too many problems later.
>
> Personally, I like to design my subpatchers like a function call with a well-defined interface of messages (parameters) it can accept. I try to only use one inlet which immediately goes to a route object. So an oscillator subpatch might expect messages like “freq ” “amp ” “env

“, etc and those values are easily routed where they need to go.
>
> For nested subpatches I just prepend a routing address onto the message, so to introduce polyphony in my example I might use the messages “voice1 freq “, and “voice2 amp “. For more complicated situations I use the CNMAT external OSC-route – it adds wildcards and pseudo-regex style routing possibilities, very useful!
>
> This approach has let me scale small patch experiments into full-fledged applications, as well as making it easy to interconnect patches that were not designed to work together. And I can now open multiple copies of my patches without major malfunction. I couldn’t do that with send/receive. The tradeoff is some extra overhead imposed by lots of routing, but without profiling tools it is hard to know how much this matters.
>
> For passing really large data sets a coll or jit.matrix is better of course, but you still could use the approach I just described to send an “update” message after changing the coll.
>
> Adam
—————————————————-

Hi Adam and Arne, these would be interesting contributions to the ‘how to apply oo within max’ thread http://www.cycling74.com/forums/index.php?t=msg&th=25272&prevloaded=1&rid=3579&S=787f11fb3e4965c3ef2df570184d85e5&start=0
which is all about data management in larger patches, the problems with global sends/receives, the alternatives, etc.

Let’s not go into this too much here, but I would be interested in larger patches (not necessarily working ones) that demonstrate the way you work. It would be great if you’d have the possibility of mailing me some stuff.

Cheers,
Mattijs

#114145
Oct 10, 2007 at 9:00am

Patcher windows are still square, as is the bpatcher object. It’s not
like someone went through the program indisciminately with the “round
corners” wand and zapped everything. We’ve thought about a lot of
this stuff already and I can assure you (based on the experience we
had updating the help and example files) that your old patches will
(probably with a few minor exceptions) look the same, just different.

Change is always scary, but I think this will be good one. Getting
all worked up about the new look months before the software is there
for you to try out won’t help anyone, though. So, please, give us the
benefit of the doubt that we’re a) concerned about the same issues as
you and b) committed to making Max 5 look and perform well. Really.

jb

Am 10.10.2007 um 03:29 schrieb Todor Todoroff:

> bpatcher

#114146
Oct 10, 2007 at 9:39am

Quote: f.e wrote on Sat, 06 October 2007 01:49
—————————————————-
> I almost cried. It’s so so ugly i could kill myself. Do C74 is really
> allowed to bring that roundish outfit to our software ? Is there, at
> least an option to get rid of this ? Our patches will look like a bunch
> of scattered pills or suppositories…
>
>

i dont like the rounded corners either, as well as the gradients of the messageboxes. it makes max look like bidule. (read: less “professional” :))

but everything else is really nice.
many things which are no suprise, but also some new ideas.

hopefully presentation mode will not make people design their interfaces exclusively this way?

the filebrowser looks impressive though i dont see its relevance yet.
i can do most of these things in the finder faster.
it is mostly for people which are not able to organize their project files on their own i suppose.

drag onto objectboxes – superb!
drag text files into colls, and paths of pictures into GUI objects.
but i wonder how this will work with GUI objects which use more than 1 pic ..?
the need to add a path or file to an object is (my) number one reason why i need to open inspectors all the time. good if we can get rid of this asap.
that dragging will work with patchers too seems only logical and i have asked myself often why it does not already work in v4.

-state of 110 (ableton-design free zone)

#114147
Oct 10, 2007 at 9:48am

> Regular objects that used to be skinnable with bitmaps, at least,
> at this time are not customizable.
Much as I’m not sure I like the new look yet (very /Ableton/, don’t you think?), I’m sure it will grow on me – but, it’s the above statement that has me worried.
Chris Muir said that:
>There are a _few_ object that have a classic appearance option
- can someone from Cycling verify that this will include the above skinable objects (pictslider ? pictbutton ?! matrixctrl??! -please!)
I remember what a great step forward it seemed from Max 3 to 4, when you realised that you could actually start to make Max apps that didn’t have to /look/ like they were made with Max; it would be a real bummer to lose this – especially if you’re not mad about Max’s new look anyway (though I’m sure we all will grow to love it one day ;-)
cheers
Roger

#114148
Oct 10, 2007 at 11:12am

I assume that it wil be possible to run max 4 and 5 on the same
computer and the runtime will be available for a looooooong time?
oh and release the source of max 4 ; )

isjtar

#114149
Oct 10, 2007 at 11:29am

On 10 oct. 07, at 18:48, roger.carruthers wrote:

> – can someone from Cycling verify that this will include the above
> skinable objects (pictslider ? pictbutton ?! matrixctrl??! -please!)

pictslider, pictctrl, matrixctrl are still part of Max 5, of course.

ej

#114150
Oct 10, 2007 at 1:11pm

> i dont like the rounded corners either, as well as the gradients of the messageboxes. it makes max look like bidule. (read: less “professional” :))

I quite agree. I don’t want to be a snob but I think the new look is a classic example of good design being subordinate to marketing. It seems to me to be less about enhancing the Max development experience and more about getting Max ready for some kind of future integration with Live, an idea which I’m sure will make some people very happy but which personally fills me with dread as I think that damn software is the death of music…

sb

#114151
Oct 10, 2007 at 1:17pm

I think a parameter to set the ‘cornerradius’ of ALL rounded objects is a perfect solution and I strongly desire such a parameter. Jeremy, there’s no need to get defensive. No one’s saying anything to the effect that what the team is doing is indiscriminate. We’re just reacting to the bite-sized pieces of information we’re being given.

#114152
Oct 10, 2007 at 2:36pm

if i were an MSP person, i’d be very worried about the effect of
those rounded corners and antialiasing on the audio. :P

On Oct 10, 2007, at 9:17 AM, matt wrote:

>
> I think a parameter to set the ‘cornerradius’ of ALL rounded
> objects is a perfect solution and I strongly desire such a
> parameter. Jeremy, there’s no need to get defensive. No one’s
> saying anything to the effect that what the team is doing is
> indiscriminate. We’re just reacting to the bite-sized pieces of
> information we’re being given.
>

#114153
Oct 10, 2007 at 3:15pm

At 3:39 AM -0600 10/10/07, Roman Thilenius wrote:
>hopefully presentation mode will not make people design their interfaces exclusively this way?

I’m curious why you think it should not be used all the time?

-C


Chris Muir | “There are many futures and only one status quo.
cbm@well.com | This is why conservatives mostly agree,
http://www.xfade.com | and radicals always argue.” – Brian Eno

#114154
Oct 10, 2007 at 4:19pm

Quote: simonbreak wrote on Wed, 10 October 2007 07:11
—————————————————-

>some kind of future integration with Live, an idea which I’m sure will make some people very happy but which personally fills me with dread as I think that damn software is the death of music…
>
> sb

HAHAHA, totally man.
More loop-based-idiots.
Ableton Live is the lowest piece of crap bottom feeder of the sequencer world right now. It lacks any true innovation, or the pushing of anybody to higher levels of music. Out of all the possibilities in infinite reality for what a sequencer can do, Ableton Live thinks inside the box at every turn.
Nobody I know who’s genius is actually using that joke.
It’s for lamers only.

Ableton Live == the new DJ

#114155
Oct 10, 2007 at 4:33pm

max 5 looks horrible. like a apple design.. without personality.

#114156
Oct 10, 2007 at 4:37pm

I’m not a Live user, but I’d rather not see this discussion degrade into a “DAW X sucks” flame war. Theres plenty of internet out there for that kind of nonsense.

Anyways, I have a question-

How is presentation mode going to work with bpatchers? I mean, if create a patch that I plan to use in a bpatcher and use presentation mode to set up the GUI, will it show up in the bpatcher even if I’m not currently in presentation mode in the main patch?

How does that work for sub-patches etc?

It would be nice if the option of presentation mode was per patch so I dont have to be constantly switching views to access different parts of the patch which are in various stages of completion. However, I could see this would complicate things also. hmmmmmmm

I guess I will really have to sit down and use it to know how it works :

#114157
Oct 10, 2007 at 4:49pm

On the other hand, if it’s possible to skin them using vector rather than
bitmap graphics, sign me up. I’ll gladly deal with Illustrator over
Photoshop any day of the week…

Peter McCulloch

#114158
Oct 10, 2007 at 4:49pm

Not quite the same, but you can use the “universal” object to talk to all
instances of an object.

Peter McCulloch

#114159
Oct 10, 2007 at 5:11pm

On 11 oct. 07, at 01:37, Nick Inhofe wrote:

>
> I’m not a Live user, but I’d rather not see this discussion degrade
> into a “DAW X sucks” flame war. Theres plenty of internet out there
> for that kind of nonsense.
>
> Anyways, I have a question-
>
> How is presentation mode going to work with bpatchers? I mean, if
> create a patch that I plan to use in a bpatcher and use
> presentation mode to set up the GUI, will it show up in the
> bpatcher even if I’m not currently in presentation mode in the main
> patch?
>
> How does that work for sub-patches etc?
>
> It would be nice if the option of presentation mode was per patch
> so I dont have to be constantly switching views to access different
> parts of the patch which are in various stages of completion.
> However, I could see this would complicate things also. hmmmmmmm

Each patcher have an inspector where you can decide if it’ll be open
in presentation mode or not.

ej

#114160
Oct 10, 2007 at 5:32pm

niceeeeeeeeeee

ok im sold then.

i wont even complain about rounded edges.

…much

#114161
Oct 10, 2007 at 5:36pm

Quote: Chris Muir wrote on Wed, 10 October 2007 08:15
—————————————————-
> At 3:39 AM -0600 10/10/07, Roman Thilenius wrote:
> >hopefully presentation mode will not make people design their interfaces exclusively this way?
>
> I’m curious why you think it should not be used all the time?
>

I’ve gotten in the habit of using pvar to handle the issues that I think presentation mode is meant to solve. A while back I made the feature request to add parent::objectname syntax to pvar so it could be encapsulated. I still think that will help me organize big complicated patches better than presentation mode can. Presentation mode isn’t going to fix the problem of having tons of GUI objects with complicated logic connecting them, that’s what encapsulation is for and unfortunately its not possible in a reasonable way in Max 4 because pvar can’t be encapsulated. I hope there will be something in Max 5 to address this.

-Adam

#114162
Oct 10, 2007 at 5:39pm

I’ve actually seen some very innovative and interesting non-loop
based performances with Live. Just one example, George Lewis has used
it extensively in recent years, and you’d never know it. JA Deane
also uses it for very interesting interaction with LiSA for live
sampling – again, not your basic ’4 on the floor’ loop based stuff.

It all comes down to being smarter than your tools, and making them
do what you want to do, rather than being used by them to do what
they make easy.

Just my humble opinion…

On Oct 10, 2007, at 10:19 AM, Zola wrote:

>
> Quote: simonbreak wrote on Wed, 10 October 2007 07:11
> —————————————————-
>
>> some kind of future integration with Live, an idea which I’m sure
>> will make some people very happy but which personally fills me
>> with dread as I think that damn software is the death of music…
>>
>> sb
>
> HAHAHA, totally man.
> More loop-based-idiots.
> Ableton Live is the lowest piece of crap bottom feeder of the
> sequencer world right now. It lacks any true innovation, or the
> pushing of anybody to higher levels of music. Out of all the
> possibilities in infinite reality for what a sequencer can do,
> Ableton Live thinks inside the box at every turn.
> Nobody I know who’s genius is actually using that joke.
> It’s for lamers only.
>
> Ableton Live == the new DJ
>

—-
Steven M. Miller
Professor, Contemporary Music Program
College of Santa Fe

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>
CMP <
http://www.csf.edu/csf/academics/cmp/index.html>

#114163
Oct 10, 2007 at 5:55pm

Quote: roger.carruthers wrote on Wed, 10 October 2007 02:48
—————————————————-
> I remember what a great step forward it seemed from Max 3 to 4, when you realised that you could actually start to make Max apps that didn’t have to /look/ like they were made with Max; it would be a real bummer to lose this

I wouldn’t be concerned about that. From what I’ve heard so far, I am certain it will much easier than ever before to make Max 5 apps that look nothing like Max. Some of the features that spring to mind are transparency support, embedded HTML, and SVG. You might have to learn some more skills to take advantage of this stuff, but there GUI possibilities abound…

-Adam

#114164
Oct 10, 2007 at 6:26pm

At 10:37 AM -0600 10/10/07, Nick Inhofe wrote:
>How is presentation mode going to work with bpatchers? I mean, if create a patch that I plan to use in a bpatcher and use presentation mode to set up the GUI, will it show up in the bpatcher even if I’m not currently in presentation mode in the main patch?

Presentation Mode workflow:

Design your patch logically, placing UI elements near the things they are controlling. (This can make for a pretty readable patch, IMO)

Now, select the things you want to appear in Presentation mode, and add them using the menu command. Objects added to the Presentation layer have a reddish “tinge” when editing the patch, so that you can tell what things are included in the Presentation layer.

Now, when you enter Presentation Mode, only the things you added in the previous step are present.

In Presentation Mode, drag the UI objects to their desired location, resize them as needed, etc. You can have a different location for anything in the Presentation layer, as well as different sizes for some types of object (e.g. umenu)

There is a preference in the Patcher Inspector to have a patcher always “Open in Presentation”

If a patcher is set to “Open in Presentation”, and is used as a bpatcher, the Presentation layer is what you’ll see when it’s embedded, regardless of the setting of the parent patcher.

-C


Chris Muir | “There are many futures and only one status quo.
cbm@well.com | This is why conservatives mostly agree,
http://www.xfade.com | and radicals always argue.” – Brian Eno

#114165
Oct 10, 2007 at 11:36pm

Quote: adamj wrote on Wed, 10 October 2007 10:36
—————————————————-
> Quote: Chris Muir wrote on Wed, 10 October 2007 08:15
> —————————————————-
> > At 3:39 AM -0600 10/10/07, Roman Thilenius wrote:
> > >hopefully presentation mode will not make people design their interfaces exclusively this way?
> >
> > I’m curious why you think it should not be used all the time?
> >
>
> I’ve gotten in the habit of using pvar to handle the issues that I think presentation mode is meant to solve.

I see Presentation Mode as orthogonal to encapsulation, send/receive, and your pvar way of working.

It’s another tool that can be used to make your patchers cleaner and easier to understand. It doesn’t replace proper abstractions, it makes them better.

-C

#114166
Oct 11, 2007 at 12:58am

In regards to commentary on rounded corners:

Get a life. Seriously. Don’t you people have better things to
complain about? I can think of several features in Max 5 that will
actually impact the way I work, either positively or negatively (I’d
imagine mostly positive, but it remains to be seen), but honestly I
couldn’t give a fuck about rounded damn corners. They look fine.
Whatever. If you really have that big of a problem with them, I
refer you to Mr. John Cage:

“If something is boring after two minutes, try it for four. If still
boring, then eight. Then sixteen. Then thirty-two. Eventually one
discovers that it is not boring at all.”

Point is, they aren’t changing it, and you’ll get used to it, and
since only a marginal amount of you have even USED THE DAMN THING YET
maybe you should, oh, try it first. These are the same type of
complaints that pop up when they change the damn icon of Mail.app.

So I ask all of you, please, stop flooding my mailing list with
comments about the damn shape of the object boxes. It wastes my time
having to filter them out to get to interesting things.

/rant

b

Barry Threw
Media Art and Technology

San Francisco, CA Work: 857-544-3967
Email: bthrew@gmail.com
IM: captogreadmore (AIM)
http:/www.barrythrew.com

#114167
Oct 11, 2007 at 1:36am

barry, you seem angry. perhaps you should antialias a bit, you know,
shave off those hard edges.

On Oct 10, 2007, at 8:58 PM, barry threw wrote:

> In regards to commentary on rounded corners:
>
> Get a life. Seriously. Don’t you people have better things to
> complain about? I can think of several features in Max 5 that will
> actually impact the way I work, either positively or negatively
> (I’d imagine mostly positive, but it remains to be seen), but
> honestly I couldn’t give a fuck about rounded damn corners. They
> look fine. Whatever. If you really have that big of a problem
> with them, I refer you to Mr. John Cage:
>
> “If something is boring after two minutes, try it for four. If
> still boring, then eight. Then sixteen. Then thirty-two. Eventually
> one discovers that it is not boring at all.”
>
> Point is, they aren’t changing it, and you’ll get used to it, and
> since only a marginal amount of you have even USED THE DAMN THING
> YET maybe you should, oh, try it first. These are the same type of
> complaints that pop up when they change the damn icon of Mail.app.
>
> So I ask all of you, please, stop flooding my mailing list with
> comments about the damn shape of the object boxes. It wastes my
> time having to filter them out to get to interesting things.
>
> /rant
>
> b
>
>
> Barry Threw
> Media Art and Technology
>
>
> San Francisco, CA Work: 857-544-3967
> Email: bthrew@gmail.com
> IM: captogreadmore (AIM)
> http:/www.barrythrew.com
>
>
>
>

#114168
Oct 11, 2007 at 3:14am

WEll at least the previews of max 5 has give us forum peeps something to blab about(probably should be patchin). All I can say, work flow view wicked. Little textured grid for object placement wicked. File browser and drag and drop functionality… very much in need.

Feature question,

Like some pcb/circuit layout software you get the ability to copy and paste arrays of your selection, to align both vertically/horizontally, to space selected objects by x, to create busses of multiple connections and other such higher level macro features .. will Max 5 have such wonderful tools to increase patch readability and streamline design thought process?

Anywho given by the garb going on here sounds like the new design will be wonderfull for adding features like the above mentioned within incremental releases.

Cant’ wait to get me the new copy!!!

#114169
Oct 13, 2007 at 9:05am

Along the lines of that (distribute objects), wondering if the Max Toolbox will still work OK in 5? Or have some of the features been implemented? That’s a damn clever and useful add-on, maybe some of its power has been included…

Is that ;max roundedcorners thing a reality? hopefully? If so the debate is over and everyone can be happy. Hard edges, soft ones… I do think it’s important to address appearance, most people who see Max for the first time are less than thrilled about how it looks (with most patches anyway). However, they don’t know what it can do and how easy it is to get things going, and they’re used to commercial software that spends big bucks on appearance. I think the new look is a lot better and in keeping with the times software-wise, and I think it’ll grow on most people. The transparency and zoom really make it all worth it.

Can you turn off the popup balloons? I think they will get in the way most of the time, but for learning they’re great. Hopefully the info bar at the bottom is still there, and has been expanded.

On another note, it would be nice to have the ability to switch back and forth between direct cords and aligned ones — the aligned ones are neater to look at, and don’t create a huge messy web, but for me, they can be a lot trickier to see what’s going where and in what order. But I imagine this isn’t possible, as it’s a patch change (part of the wonderful new Undo stack ;)… instead of an overall setting like “show foreground” that can be changed anytime.

–CJ

#114170
Oct 13, 2007 at 9:12am

— and they’re used to commercial software that spends big bucks on appearance

I meant, compared to an individual putting together a patch. I didn’t mean Max itself ;)

Are there any libraries out there of matrixctrl, pictctrl, toggles, etc. that look cool? Rolling one’s own in Photoshop or whatever is fine, but I’d just as soon see what some design types have come up with. Having shiny, glowy buttons rather than gray toggles would be great. (Yes I know I can do it myself…)

I’d love to see a little sample package of these included in the release. Not just for use / aesthetics, either — they might help clear up some of the difficulties when making pictures for matrixctrl and pictslider etc… I’ve found it tough sometimes to get the settings right with these.

Looking forward to it. How much $$? Not that I wouldn’t pay whatever is asked. ;)

–CJ

#114171
Oct 13, 2007 at 9:20am

On 13 oct. 07, at 18:05, Seejay James wrote:

> Can you turn off the popup balloons? I think they will get in the
> way most of the time, but for learning they’re great. Hopefully the
> info bar at the bottom is still there, and has been expanded.

Yep there’s an option to disable the assistance.

ej

#114172
Oct 13, 2007 at 7:40pm

Yes. I seem angry. But in fact I am a calm and tranquil sea.

AES gave me all the “antialiasing” I need for a few months.

b

On Oct 10, 2007, at 6:36 PM, joshua goldberg wrote:

> barry, you seem angry. perhaps you should antialias a bit, you
> know, shave off those hard edges.
>
> On Oct 10, 2007, at 8:58 PM, barry threw wrote:
>
>> In regards to commentary on rounded corners:
>>
>> Get a life. Seriously. Don’t you people have better things to
>> complain about? I can think of several features in Max 5 that
>> will actually impact the way I work, either positively or
>> negatively (I’d imagine mostly positive, but it remains to be
>> seen), but honestly I couldn’t give a fuck about rounded damn
>> corners. They look fine. Whatever. If you really have that big
>> of a problem with them, I refer you to Mr. John Cage:
>>
>> “If something is boring after two minutes, try it for four. If
>> still boring, then eight. Then sixteen. Then thirty-two.
>> Eventually one discovers that it is not boring at all.”
>>
>> Point is, they aren’t changing it, and you’ll get used to it, and
>> since only a marginal amount of you have even USED THE DAMN THING
>> YET maybe you should, oh, try it first. These are the same type
>> of complaints that pop up when they change the damn icon of Mail.app.
>>
>> So I ask all of you, please, stop flooding my mailing list with
>> comments about the damn shape of the object boxes. It wastes my
>> time having to filter them out to get to interesting things.
>>
>> /rant
>>
>> b
>>
>>
>> Barry Threw
>> Media Art and Technology
>>
>>
>> San Francisco, CA Work: 857-544-3967
>> Email: bthrew@gmail.com
>> IM: captogreadmore (AIM)
>> http:/www.barrythrew.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

Barry Threw
Media Art and Technology

San Francisco, CA Work: 857-544-3967
Email: bthrew@gmail.com
IM: captogreadmore (AIM)
http:/www.barrythrew.com

#114173
Oct 13, 2007 at 8:13pm

hate to add to this giant pile of spam, but i must agree.

i mean it’s one thing to say that a certain tool or application makes your work sound or look a certain way, or makes you a “loser” for using it (which is idiotic enough imho), but it’s a completely other thing to say that whether or not said tool has rounded corners or square corners affects the content and quality of your work.

#114174
Oct 14, 2007 at 11:36am

> i mean it’s one thing to say that a certain tool or application makes your work sound or look a certain way, or makes you a “loser” for using it (which is idiotic enough imho), but it’s a completely other thing to say that whether or not said tool has rounded corners or square corners affects the content and quality of your work.
>
>

Yes, it affects the ability to do highly obsessive compulsive painstakingly aligned, slaved over and perfected-upon-down-to-the-very-last pristine pixel of object position and wire ribbon path optimization in an super-clean patcher network where screen real estate is infinitely priced, yes, it does.

Yes, we’re out there, and we’re really on a trip about Max’s 1-pixel-wide wires and exacting edges.

And now Cycling 74′ would like finance the engine of progress and sell to some musicians who’d rather let it all hang out in their patches.

Some people patch messy.
Some people patch like OCD neat freaks.
I think the new Max is better for the former, better for musicians who wanna let-it-all-hang-out.
I think the new Max is not so good for us guys who wanna be insane about our wires.
Being insane about wires has defined my Max experience.

Hopefully the new profits which come in the door from cool cafe cat round-cornered environmentally fit active and healthy turtlenecked vw-bug musicians who wouldn’t buy Max before, but now_will because of the rounded edges, can go towards hiring an extra brainiac to work on Max’s core and some seriously cool shit we couldn’t have done on nerdozoid-wire-fetish profits.

How can I forgive you?
..for turning all these wires into worms?

You’d better have a fucking good high-level and highly accessible object oriented C++ interface to the new vector widget programming this time, and to max, and to msp, designed with the interface face-first, oh please learn from boost, and with a whole set of awesome little examples. I loathe coding UI in C. Roll a small snowball down a big snow hill world with your interface.

blastagons

- Invect

#114175
Oct 14, 2007 at 1:42pm

> object oriented C++ interface to the new vector

I’m talking about a scene graph.

#114176
Oct 14, 2007 at 9:23pm

> Yes, it affects the ability to do highly obsessive compulsive painstakingly aligned, slaved over and perfected-upon-down-to-the-very-last pristine pixel of object position and wire ribbon path optimization in an super-clean patcher network where screen real estate is infinitely priced, yes, it does.

In other words, why can’t Cycling make more of an effort to enable your mindless obsessive-compulsive behavior?

This has become without any doubt the most idiotic max-list thread of all time.

I for one have had it up to here with diatribes packed with insults and threats. Since their author doesn’t usually spew unless provoked, maybe the rest of us could just refrain from expressing any opinions at all about Max 5′s appearance – pro or con – until after we actually get our hands on it.

> How can I forgive you?
..for turning all these wires into worms?

Oh, for pity’s sake, just give it a rest.

#114177
Oct 14, 2007 at 10:57pm

That’s your opinion. And you know what they say about opinions… These anti-rant rants are less constructive, just as, if not more condescending and tiresome. Issues of functional aesthetics as they relate to productivity and creativity are on topic. If Cycling74 want to share their work-in-progress then they should be prepared for constructive and/or critical comments from their users. This attitude to ‘take what you’re given and don’t look talk back lest they take it away from us’ is one of the most abhorrent I think I’ve ever seen and does nothing for progress.

#114178
Oct 14, 2007 at 11:12pm

Except, er, you havent used it, so you cant really comment on the
FUNCTIONAL part.

On Oct 14, 2007, at 6:57 PM, matt wrote:

>
> That’s your opinion. And you know what they say about opinions…
> These anti-rant rants are less constructive, just as, if not more
> condescending and tiresome. Issues of functional aesthetics as
> they relate to productivity and creativity are on topic. If
> Cycling74 want to share their work-in-progress then they should be
> prepared for constructive and/or critical comments from their
> users. This attitude to ‘take what you’re given and don’t look talk
> back lest they take it away from us’ is one of the most abhorrent I
> think I’ve ever seen and does nothing for progress.

v a d e //

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

#114179
Oct 15, 2007 at 12:00am

> If Cycling74 want to share their work-in-progress then they should be prepared for constructive and/or critical comments from their users.

Yeah, well, “constructive” would be the operative word here.

> This attitude to ‘take what you’re given and don’t look talk back lest they take it away from us’ is one of the most abhorrent I think I’ve ever seen and does nothing for progress.

I’m deeply impressed at your amazing insight into my “attitude”, and certainly no one would accuse you of reading your ideas into my comments… or would they?

Clearly, nuance doesn’t stand much of a chance in these parts. So I’ll say what I meant a little more plainly: I find Zola’s recent rants offensive, insulting and almost breathtakingly non-productive. However, I’m glad to know you like them.

I’m sure there’s a scintillating discussion to be had about the aesthetics of Max 5, but this sure as hell ain’t it.

#114180
Oct 15, 2007 at 5:38am

I think Zola’s rants are right on the money. Almost all of my super anally aligned wires are going to go straight to shit with these big fat stupid snake wires. I absolutely despise the look of the new GUI.

Give it a rest. We don’t need complementary play nice police on this forum. It’s not a WoW forum, even the worst “flame” may have something intelligent and relevant to say.

#114181
Oct 15, 2007 at 5:58am

have you used max 5 and actually tried to organize your patch/
patchcoords how you like?

If not, you really can only speculate. I highly suggest people shut
the fuck up about this until release/or public beta.

ffs.

On Oct 15, 2007, at 1:38 AM, jamez wrote:

>
> I think Zola’s rants are right on the money. Almost all of my
> super anally aligned wires are going to go straight to shit with
> these big fat stupid snake wires. I absolutely despise the look of
> the new GUI.
>
> Give it a rest. We don’t need complementary play nice police on
> this forum. It’s not a WoW forum, even the worst “flame” may have
> something intelligent and relevant to say.

v a d e //

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

#114182
Oct 15, 2007 at 6:16am

> If not, you really can only speculate. I highly suggest people shut the fuck
> up about this until release/or public beta.

word.

#114183
Oct 15, 2007 at 5:36pm

I will go sit in the corner for my time out.

v a d e //

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

#114184
Oct 16, 2007 at 10:08am

Quote: vade wrote on Mon, 15 October 2007 19:36
—————————————————-
> I will go sit in the corner for my time out.
>

LOL

#114185
Oct 16, 2007 at 7:43pm

OK. I’ll bite.

One of two things can come from this thread.

A) You bitch a lot about an opinion that isn’t backed up with any
relevant information and it turns into what it has.

B) You actually present some relevant information on why the new
interface in Max 5 is worse than the old interface. “Because my
first impression is its different” doesn’t count. “I’m not good at C
and so hate it” doesn’t count. Talking about how you can’t align
your patch cords, when you haven’t tried it in the new system,
doesn’t count.

> And now Cycling 74′ would like finance the engine of progress and
> sell to some musicians who’d rather let it all hang out in their
> patches.

You do know we are in the business of making music, correct? I mean,
and media art, and robots, and…but regardless. You are NOT THE
ONLY USER OF MAX.

I will discuss the aesthetic issues of rounded objects and the new
patch cords with anyone until the end of the earth, if they can build
an actual argument, give me any actual references to studies that
support or deny their claims, and generally back up what they are
saying with something besides email rants. I am prepared. Bring it.

Lets turn this into an interesting interface discussion, or else kill
that focus of the thread.

> Hopefully the new profits which come in the door from cool cafe cat
> round-cornered environmentally fit active and healthy turtlenecked
> vw-bug musicians who wouldn’t buy Max before, but now_will because
> of the rounded edges, can go towards hiring an extra brainiac to
> work on Max’s core and some seriously cool shit we couldn’t have
> done on nerdozoid-wire-fetish profits.

If you are actually of the opinion that Max should remain harder, and
the learning curve steeper, so that we can exclude users and boost
your ego, the I will offer the second STFU of this thread, contrary
to Wallace’s suggestion. Ego for being awesome at Max, but not good
enough for a little C? Lets fight.

b

On Oct 14, 2007, at 4:36 AM, Zola wrote:

>
>> i mean it’s one thing to say that a certain tool or application
>> makes your work sound or look a certain way, or makes you a
>> “loser” for using it (which is idiotic enough imho), but it’s a
>> completely other thing to say that whether or not said tool has
>> rounded corners or square corners affects the content and quality
>> of your work.
>>
>>
>
> Yes, it affects the ability to do highly obsessive compulsive
> painstakingly aligned, slaved over and perfected-upon-down-to-the-
> very-last pristine pixel of object position and wire ribbon path
> optimization in an super-clean patcher network where screen real
> estate is infinitely priced, yes, it does.
>
> Yes, we’re out there, and we’re really on a trip about Max’s 1-
> pixel-wide wires and exacting edges.
>
> And now Cycling 74′ would like finance the engine of progress and
> sell to some musicians who’d rather let it all hang out in their
> patches.
>
> Some people patch messy.
> Some people patch like OCD neat freaks.
> I think the new Max is better for the former, better for musicians
> who wanna let-it-all-hang-out.
> I think the new Max is not so good for us guys who wanna be insane
> about our wires.
> Being insane about wires has defined my Max experience.
>
>
>
> How can I forgive you?
> ..for turning all these wires into worms?
>
> You’d better have a fucking good high-level and highly accessible
> object oriented C++ interface to the new vector widget programming
> this time, and to max, and to msp, designed with the interface face-
> first, oh please learn from boost, and with a whole set of awesome
> little examples. I loathe coding UI in C. Roll a small snowball
> down a big snow hill world with your interface.
>
> blastagons
>
> – Invect

Barry Threw
Media Art and Technology

San Francisco, CA Work: 857-544-3967
Email: bthrew@gmail.com
IM: captogreadmore (AIM)
http:/www.barrythrew.com

#114186
Oct 16, 2007 at 8:27pm

>
> Barry Threw
> Media Art and Technology
>

Barry,

One of the great things about being CEO of a company is that you get to read the rants of people like ‘Zola’ and then say “screw this guy. We’re going to do it exactly how we want to do it.”

After David, Joshua, and Company, have put so many years of dedication into Max/MSP, they better-damn-well be able to make it look just however they want it to. It’s their vision.

They’re aware of endless issues regarding their customerbase which individuals such as myself cannot predict. There’s no sane reason they’d run off and make a UI decision without a thoughtful reason. These are guys whose lives are dedicated to Max. They must know the issues of wires and edges as much as anyone possibly can.

The outcome of that knowledge somehow clashes with what I think is great about Max.

So I simply provide a real world perspective which epitomizes a certain way and a certain value set about Maxxing. I represent N users. Possibly a minority. If so, it’s up to them to find out and then decide to leave persons such as myself unhappy– but at least they’ve heard that someone out there cares about real estate.

Max was a “1-pixel design.”
I think 1-pixel designs for signal flow are nirvana.
That’s why I work at 4960×1600 resolution– to have more 1-pixel space.
My song’s signal flows span across the whole 8 megapixels.
It’s like being an architect with drafting paper.
Don’t forget about architects.

The edge borders on the new max objects are really huge. Probably because people couldn’t see the iolets. That’s why I ask for
;
max borderwidth 1
Max 5 is like a LCD-display-downgrade for me.

Mattjs made the best point in the thread so far: He has worked how I do for years, but he thinks he *should stop* doing so. That is a fair point.

I don’t think I should stop working how I work.
I *like* it!

- Invect

#114187
Oct 16, 2007 at 9:06pm

> Max 5 is like a LCD-display-downgrade for me.
>

All I have to say is:
–Zoom out. You will be able to display about 100x more patcher in Max
5 using the handy and intuitive zoom feature. How’s that for real estate?

–Grids.

–Alpha-blending of interface components. It’s better than you can
imagine. Antialiased patch cords at 20% opacity are really something
special to see.

–Be patient. You have no idea how much you will like Max 5 until you
try it.

Best,
Andrew B.

#114188
Oct 16, 2007 at 9:20pm

and I think aliased patch coords are a pain on my eyes.

think, think, think, OPINION!

Feel free to keep using Max 4.x

Or, wait, and use Max 5 for a while, and see how it goes?

We’ve YET to see any evidence pro or con concerning the functional
aesthetics of Max in relation to ROUND CORNERS AND ALIASED/
ANTIALIASED PATCH COORDS.

On Oct 16, 2007, at 4:27 PM, Zola wrote:

> I think 1-pixel designs for signal flow are nirvana.

v a d e //

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

#114189
Oct 16, 2007 at 9:45pm

vade skrev:
>
> We’ve YET to see any evidence pro or con concerning the functional
> aesthetics of Max in relation to ROUND CORNERS AND ALIASED/ANTIALIASED
> PATCH COORDS.
>
And we’ve yet to see mouse scroll wheel -> Max zoom… now that is
something I am looking forward to….

Andreas.

#114190
Oct 17, 2007 at 12:08am

I already hate Max 6.

b

On Oct 16, 2007, at 2:20 PM, vade wrote:

> and I think aliased patch coords are a pain on my eyes.
>
> think, think, think, OPINION!
>
> Feel free to keep using Max 4.x
>
> Or, wait, and use Max 5 for a while, and see how it goes?
>
> We’ve YET to see any evidence pro or con concerning the functional
> aesthetics of Max in relation to ROUND CORNERS AND ALIASED/
> ANTIALIASED PATCH COORDS.
>
>
> On Oct 16, 2007, at 4:27 PM, Zola wrote:
>
>> I think 1-pixel designs for signal flow are nirvana.
>
> v a d e //
>
> http://www.vade.info
> abstrakt.vade.info
>
>
>

Barry Threw
Media Art and Technology

San Francisco, CA Work: 857-544-3967
Email: bthrew@gmail.com
IM: captogreadmore (AIM)
http:/www.barrythrew.com

#114191
Oct 17, 2007 at 1:01am

On 17 oct. 07, at 09:08, barry threw wrote:

> I already hate Max 6.

So do I. Although, the main problem I have with Max 6 is that it’s
not available meaning I can use those new amazing features;-)

ej

#114192
Oct 17, 2007 at 2:10am

At 5:08 PM -0700 10/16/07, barry threw wrote:
>I already hate Max 6.

Aw, come on… ya gotta love the spherical 3D orrery-based interface.

-C


Chris Muir | “There are many futures and only one status quo.
cbm@well.com | This is why conservatives mostly agree,
http://www.xfade.com | and radicals always argue.” – Brian Eno

#114193
Oct 17, 2007 at 3:30am

#114194
Oct 18, 2007 at 11:21am

regarding “preset” object improvements mentioned in David Z. first article i think it would be cool if it means also the preset values of an instantiated patcher (bpatcher or not) will be saved with the parent patch and not with the patcher itself..this is just a little thing, one can do it easily right now with a little abstraction, but i think it could be a nice little feature to add..

#114195

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.