[PD] GEM and transparency

bbogart at ryerson.ca bbogart at ryerson.ca
Fri Jul 18 17:13:50 CEST 2003


hey Johannes,

I do a lot with separator and groups, usually I have a series of abstractions which stand in for geometry, and being able to use an argument as the render order makes a lot more sense that trying to trigger a undetermined number of objects to go in the correct order.

Ben

----- Original Message -----
From: zmoelnig at iem.at
Date: Friday, July 18, 2003 9:42 am
Subject: Re: [PD] GEM and transparency

> Zitiere bbogart at ryerson.ca:
> 
> > Hey Martin,
> > 
> > your problem is render-order not transparency. transparency only 
> workstrue
> 
> > Gemheads with smaller numbers get rendered first (0-1-2-3-4 
> etc..) and
> > the same goes for separators, 
> hey, this is news to me.
> i cannot think of any way how to achieve this (from the 
> programmer's side, of 
> course), without getting a *lot* of timing problems.
> if you really need a specific rendering order with several 
> separators, you'll 
> have to do what you have to do in pd to acchieve a certain order 
> of message-
> execution (basically Gem is message based): use "trigger"
> 
> sketch:
> 
> [gemlist(
> |
> [t    a    a]
> |           |
> [gemlist2(  [gemlist1(
> 
> 
> > 
> > I've attached a demo example to make things more clear
> > 
> i'll have a look at this.
> however, i will *strongly* recommend to not rely on a feature like 
> the ordering 
> of several gem-sublists by giving an argument to [separator].
> it will be really confusing to ignore pd's way of handling such 
> problem.
> 
> mfg.as.r
> IOhannes
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PD-list mailing list
> PD-list at iem.at
> http://iem.at/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pd-list
> 





More information about the Pd-list mailing list