[PD] 'pipe' in Gem chain

[guenter geiger]

The problem of putting a pipe into the renderchain is that the rendering
order will be disturbed.
This means, the gemhead does some setup for the whole chain,
like resetting the coordinate system, colors, translation matrix etc
but the pipe will "break" this chain, and therefore the result of the
whole operation will be more or less unpredictable.

Short: No pipe in the renderchain, you will have to delay the controls.
If your abstraction takes a parameter list this is easy to do.

GG.

On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 ben at ekran.org wrote:
> Hey Martin,
>
> I just taught a large class of college students pd/Gem. I think the real
> confusion is that each object in PD seems to have a unity to itself. This
> is not the case with gem objects (which only have meaning in chains,
> rotate by itself does not make any sense.) Putting a pipe in a gemchain
> does not make sense because a gemchain is a single object. Putting a pipe
> into a square for example does not make conceptual sense. The pipe would
> always alter some aspect of the square, not the square itself. Aspects of
> gemchains are done by objects yes, but they are always controlled by
> messages.
>
> I don't have gem on this machine, what happens if you put a pipe in a
> gemchain??? (since a gemchain is not passing the same kind of data as all
> other PD obejcts)
>
> Good luck!
>
> Ben
>
> PS: Working with a lot of Gem you get used to having to interpolate or
> mess with a lot of control data. I've had to make arrays of up to 90
> interpolators! Anyone have hints on manageing arrays of interpolators? I
> guess I could wip up an abstraction that dynamically patches the number of
> interpolators needed, but this is ugly! any other ideas? (this is why I'm
> wanting grid-flow features in Gem) then I just need to interpolate the
> "grid" and have Gem parse the grid into control data for each point (or
> whathave you)
>
>
>
>
> > Sorry I didn't make this clearer. I have about 50 instances of the
> > abstraction, and they all have translateXYZ and rotateXYZ objects that
> > receive global data. I suppose what I could do is, as you say, delay the
> > control data in the abstractions.
> >
> > Somehow, conceptually I thought it made much more sense to just delay
> > the whole chain in the abstraction, rather than have something like 20
> > pipes in each abstraction. Intuitively it seems simpler, but I suppose
> > delaying the control data would actually be more efficient.
> >
> > - martin
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: <ben at ekran.org>
> > To: <martin.dupras at uwe.ac.uk>
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 8:12 PM
> > Subject: Re: [PD] 'pipe' in Gem chain
> >
> >
> >> Ok, I'm just confused why you need to "pipe" the gem chain rather than
> >> piping the control data that is causing what you want to happen... Or
> >> am I misunderstanding? What are you delaying? The video signal? When
> >> the object gets rendered? When the object is visible?
> >>
> >> B.
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> > What I'm trying to do is this. I have a partial gem chain, which
> >> "sends" to several instances of the other end of the chain. In other
> >> words, something like this:
> >> >
> >> > [gemhead]
> >> > |
> >> > [pix_video]
> >> > |
> >> > [pix_texture]
> >> > |
> >> > [s mygemchain]
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > and the abstractions:
> >> >
> >> > [r mygemchain]
> >> > |
> >> > [translateXYZ $1 $2 $3]
> >> > !
> >> > [pipe $4]
> >> > |
> >> > [cube]
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > I'm doing this from memory since the patch is not in front of me,
> >> but in that's the essence of it. I would like to be able to declare
> >> each instance of the abstraction with its own delay.
> >> >
> >> > - martin
> >> >
> >> > ----- Original Message -----
> >> > From: <ben at ekran.org>
> >> > To: <martin.dupras at uwe.ac.uk>
> >> > Cc: <pd-list at iem.kug.ac.at>
> >> > Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 7:40 PM
> >> > Subject: Re: [PD] 'pipe' in Gem chain
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> What problem are you trying to solve by delaying?
> >> >>
> >> >> Ben
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> > Is it possible to delay execution in a gem chain, say the
> >> equivalent
> >> >> of putting a 'pipe' object?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Thanks,
> >> >> >
> >> >> > - martin
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> This incoming email to UWE has been independently scanned for
> >> viruses and
> >> > any virus detected has been removed using McAfee anti-virus software
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> This incoming email to UWE has been independently scanned for viruses
> >> and
> > any virus detected has been removed using McAfee anti-virus software
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PD-list mailing list
> PD-list at iem.at
> http://iem.at/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pd-list
>