banging in order: [uzi] 100 vs [trigger] 100 bangs
hello!
I'd like to know the pros & cons of outputting 100 bangs via [uzi] & via [trigger] - with intervals as short as 10ms! (it's about projecting MANY basic shapes onto a [jit.pwindow] via [jit.lcd] - framerect etc)
or do both work much the same? (CPU, "tightness", ...)
cheers!
-jonas
hey pizza!
&
uhm, [jit.multiple]? (:
help me out here! :)
hey pizza,
I just had a look at [jit.gl.multiple], but don't get yet how this conquers [uzi]... :)
all the best!
-j
In the patch you posted, the two sides do not do the same thing. Each output on the Uzi side will get banged 20 times for each tick of the qmetro.
Uzi does its work as fast as it can, at the expense of whatever else might be going on in a patch. It's usually the fastest way to get a specific task done, but other tasks may suffer. In general, I tend to use Uzi for setup, where it won't matter if it does its job all in one frame.
thanks for the info, chris! I fully agree. :) kinda embarrassing, my mix up here
so [uzi]'s probably more reliable than [trigger] bang when it comes to very short intervals.. and if "nothing else" is going on in my patch, I can feed my [uzi] with a constant [qmetro]? (I don't have any other [metro] driven objects, if that's what you mainly had in mind when speaking of "suffering tasks")
hey p_o!
I know, t [b b b b b b . . .] is a horrifying approach! but with [jit.lcd] I'm merely defining zones (in addition with [jit.qt.grab] - once having entered certain zones, sounds arise)
in my patch one can turn off these zones/rectangles manually while motion capture still runs - so each zone has to be fed by [metro]/[qmetro], for I will be having up to 100 individual zones.
maybe I should have been more precise about my intentions in the first place. it's a rather complex patch & it'd take a while to "downscale" the patch, so one would understand the basic idea (behind my rather simple request) - otherwise I would've just posted..
that's why I tend to leave [jit.gl] objects aside at this point.
so: would the t [b b b b b b . . .] option be less task intensive than [uzi 100]?
(I'll find out this evening, once having tried for myself - until then: grateful for any further indoctrinations!)
cheers..!
-jonas
hey p_o!
nightmare indeed. :)
I'd prefer [uzi]. but just as chris mentioned, I hope my [jit.qt.grab] feed won't suffer from [uzi 100] banging every 100th a second..
here's my downgrade!
cheers..!
-j