rollover when incrementing and decrementing a value

    Jan 05 2011 | 9:26 pm
    I need to variably increment and decrement a value, and have it return to the minimum value when a threshold is exceeded, and similarly, have it return to the MAXIMUM value when the mininum is exceeded.
    So say my range is 1 to 16, and the current value is 16, if I increment then it should become 1. Conversely, if the value is 1 and I DECREMENT, then the value should go to 16.
    The modulo operator (% ) seems to work for the incrementing case, but not for the decrementing case. Is there a good way to do this?

    • Jan 05 2011 | 9:52 pm
    • Jan 05 2011 | 10:05 pm
      That works well. I came up with this:
    • Jan 05 2011 | 11:41 pm
      the modulo would work for decrementing too - but it does not work for negative numbers.
      try this for endless dials:
      expr ((($i1%$i2)+($i2)*(($i1%$i2)==0))*($i1>=0))+(((($i1%$i2)+$i2)+(-$i2)*((($i1%$i2)+$i2)==0))*($i1
      where $i2 is the range of the dial.
      and likewise for float.
      if it is sure that you are using numbers only within a smaller/limited range then
      [+ 10000] [% 16] [- 10000]
      should also work.
    • Jan 18 2012 | 9:00 pm
      (Necroing thread as I found a good solution)
    • Jan 18 2012 | 10:59 pm
      I love these zombie threads! I see your maths+mod and raise you an [expr] to get it in one go!
      [expr (($f1
    • Jan 18 2012 | 11:11 pm
      That definitely is more elegant than that monster expr above. I do a ton of research on the forum so might as well leave 'breadcrumbs' for the next guy!
    • Jan 19 2012 | 1:12 am
      i can make it longer if required. :D
    • Jan 19 2012 | 1:18 am
      *cough* That's not something I thought I'd ever see written on the Max forum!
    • Jan 19 2012 | 3:08 pm
      Luke's formula can be made a bit more compact for ints:
      [expr ($i1 % $i2) + ($i1
      A similar technique would work for floats if the expr object supported fmod(). On Max5 fmod isn't supported, but perhaps in Max6 (not installed on this machine, so I can't check).
      The C-programmer in me is delighted by abusing the Boolean comparison as an implicit typecast to int (either 0 or 1). The nicely brought up, well-behaved PASCAL programmer in me is appalled by it. If you find multiplication with a comparison expression a little weird, it's easy enough to whip up a little abstraction that does the same thing. Something like the following:
    • Jan 19 2012 | 8:11 pm
      to my excuse, mine allows offsets, i.e. a center another than 0