[PD-dev] PD-cvs Digest, Vol 29, Issue 11

[Hans-Christoph Steiner]

On Jul 12, 2007, at 5:31 PM, <martin.peach at sympatico.ca> wrote:

> Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
>>> Martin Peach wrote:
>>>> IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
>>>
>>> OK, I changed packOSC to output negative delays and it's now
>
> Oops, that should say unpackOSC...
>
>>> obvious, even on the same machine a "current" time tag always has a
>>> slight negative delay, whereas an "immediate" time tag is always
>>> exactly zero.
>>> That leaves the slight problem of a "future" message that arrives
>>> exactly on time...
>>> Martin
>>
>> Wow, nice work!  That sounds like it'll be quite easy to use timetags
>> now.  Is there anyway to generate timetags with Pd yet?
>
> Well, packOSC does that when you open a bundle, you can also  
> specify an offset. Is there a need for actual raw timetags?
> I started an external to generate them as a list of four floats (64  
> bits split into four 16-bit numbers). Then I realized it's easier  
> to use millisecond delays since that's what pd is using, so  
> unpackOSC just converts the received time tag into a millisecond  
> delay relative to the current time. This could be altered easily by  
> adding a constant at the outlet.

This sounds perfect actually, as long as you can set an time offset  
for sending messages.

.hc

>
> Martin
>



------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
----

Looking at things from a more basic level, you can come up with a  
more direct solution... It may sound small in theory, but it in  
practice, it can change entire economies.     - Amy Smith