bug: [train~] in 4.6.1?


    Aug 29 2006 | 4:23 pm
    Summary:
    [train~] seems to be ignoring its arguments, has an unexpected default pulse width, and outputs a value of 0 for 2000 ms after dsp is started.
    Expected Results:
    [train~] generates a pulse wave with a period of 1000 ms, a pulse width of 0.5. [train~ 5000 0.5] generates a pulse wave with a period of 5000 ms and a pulse width of 0.5.
    Opening the patch using different methods should yield the same results. Behavior should be consistent after closing and reopening the patch.
    Actual Results:
    [train~] and [train~ 5000 0.5] both generate a pulse wave with a period of 1000 ms, a pulse width of 0.99, and an initial period of 2000 ms at a value of 0.
    Opening the patch using different methods yields different results:
    Copy text -> New Patcher -> Paste will yield the results listed above.
    Copy text -> New from clipboard results in all [train~]s generating a pulse wave with a period of around 15ms, with the exception of [train~ 50], which will generate a pulse wave with a period of 1000 ms.
    After the patch has been saved, closing the patch and reopening, without quitting MaxMSP, yields another set of results: After reopening the patch, all [train~]s generate a pulse wave with a period of around 50ms.
    Specs:
    Mac OS 10.4.7, PB G4 1.5, MaxMSP 4.6.1/Jitter 1.6.1
    I have tried un/reinstalling MaxMSP. No change in behavior.
    So - can anyone else confirm this, or is it my problem?
    -David
    -----------

    • Aug 29 2006 | 9:34 pm
      Quote: David Stanford wrote on Tue, 29 August 2006 09:23 ---------------------------------------------------- > Summary: > > [train~] seems to be ignoring its arguments, has an unexpected > default pulse width, and outputs a value of 0 for 2000 ms after dsp > is started. >
      I am not having this problem. I tried a few different ways of making this patch, and they all work the way I would expect from the help file.
      Macbook Pro, 2 gig, 10.4.7,Max 4.6.1
      mz
    • Aug 30 2006 | 3:29 am
      Thanks for the report, we're looking at it.
      -A