Weird...pictctrl is "faster" than regular dial/live.dial?

    snaper
    May 08 2014 | 7:05 am
    Hy Guys,
    I'm working on a project, and would like to create a native looking version, besides the one with lot of pictctrl object. Actually, the original version uses right now around 16-18% CPU, but the one with the native dial object uses 25%, the third version with live.dial object around 30%. Is this normal? I mean, I thoughed that the native versions should use less CPU, am I right?
    • Roman Thilenius
      May 08 2014 | 10:50 am
      not sure about live dial, but dial uses a picture, just as picture control does, too.
      that picturecontrol is faster might have something to do with the fact that it is a newer object.
      and live dial ... well it has built-in range mapping, doesnt it?
    • snaper
      May 10 2014 | 4:07 pm
      Ok, now it is very very odd. I don't know what is the problem...
      Situation :
      Working on a M4L modular synth. Lot of modules, inputs outputs, etc, routed into a big matrix object, controller by a matrixctrl for patching. I've done this with a nice graphical interface, all controls are pictctrls.
      ...asked the users, they prefer native Ableton look, OK. "Re-draw"-ed the device, now the CPU load is 2x, and the load time of different windows are extremly slow, and slower if you did something with the patcher matrix.
      I've tried it with live.dials and regular dials aswell, WEIRD, the so so so slow, even, if I tried to remove modules, or re-make them.
      Tried it with older Live, older Max, the problem is the same :(
      Roman, are you able to take a look to my patches? My e-mail address is snaper.profound@gmail.com , I'm totally run out of ideas, the last week was an endless nightmare.
      I use send~ and receive~ objects from the modules to the matrix and back, I thoughed maybe these could cause the problem, but with the graphical version, everything is fine :S:S:S:S
    • woyteg
      May 10 2014 | 9:24 pm
      THis is pretty interesting. Do you see this CPU usage difference even when not touching the dials or only if they are moved/modulated etc?
    • snaper
      May 11 2014 | 5:48 am
      Withou touching it, right after loading :(
    • woyteg
      May 11 2014 | 2:03 pm
      Are you sure you are not passing messages through them or something? I just made a patch haveing *lots* of live.dials and teh CPU wasn't interested in it at all as it should be the case.
    • snaper
      May 11 2014 | 6:43 pm
      I've tried that to, with the same result you have. Dials are controlling signal amounts and data. I've re-built it, now it works almost fine. If you can drop me a mail, I can send you the patch for testing.