Cycling 74 » Topic: More on scripting and poly~ http://cycling74.com/forums/topic/more-on-scripting-and-poly/feed Tue, 18 Jun 2013 23:43:41 +0000 http://bbpress.org/?v=2.2.4 http://cycling74.com/forums/topic/more-on-scripting-and-poly/#post-42468 <![CDATA[More on scripting and poly~]]> http://cycling74.com/forums/topic/more-on-scripting-and-poly/#post-42468 Mon, 23 Feb 2009 13:52:13 +0000 david stevens Following on from my question on the old list about multiple outs from poly~, and the suggestion to use scripting instead of a gate~ with fixed multiple out~s (which actually was using a lot of cpu power) – I figured out how to script new outs for each instance of the poly~ and connect them up. But when I load the poly~ the new outlets don’t appear. I’m guessing this is something to do with the order in which things are created (ie the extra outlets are created after the poly~ is instantiated. Is there a solution to that?

There’s also a more fundamental question. Even if I get the outlets to show, will the poly~ actually create the correct sequence of extra outlets (ie one pair per instance of the poly~) or will it get confused? (Like me!)

The first patch is the core patcher, and below it is the code for the shell.

thanks

David

– Pasted Max Patch, click to expand. –

and here’s the shell

– Pasted Max Patch, click to expand. –

]]> http://cycling74.com/forums/topic/more-on-scripting-and-poly/#post-151984 <![CDATA[Re: More on scripting and poly~]]> http://cycling74.com/forums/topic/more-on-scripting-and-poly/#post-151984 Mon, 23 Feb 2009 18:09:41 +0000 Emmanuel Jourdan In fact you need to put as many out~ as you will have at most. You might try something like that:

– Pasted Max Patch, click to expand. –

ej

]]> http://cycling74.com/forums/topic/more-on-scripting-and-poly/#post-151985 <![CDATA[Re: More on scripting and poly~]]> http://cycling74.com/forums/topic/more-on-scripting-and-poly/#post-151985 Mon, 23 Feb 2009 20:18:06 +0000 david stevens Thanks ej, I’ll look at that later.

One question for now – is the cpu saving with this method because the 9 gate~s are no longer being used, or is it also that unconnected out~s don’t use much cpu? I’m curious because I thought that having 9 instances of 18 out~s was in itself going to eat up cpu.

thanks

Davvid

]]> http://cycling74.com/forums/topic/more-on-scripting-and-poly/#post-151986 <![CDATA[Re: More on scripting and poly~]]> http://cycling74.com/forums/topic/more-on-scripting-and-poly/#post-151986 Mon, 23 Feb 2009 23:04:17 +0000 Emmanuel Jourdan It’s just the gate~ I think…

]]>