[PD] [PD-announce] pmpd v 0.10

[cyrille henry]

Le 28/02/2011 14:54, Jack a écrit :
> Le lundi 28 février 2011 à 14:27 +0100, cyrille henry a écrit :
>>
>> Le 28/02/2011 11:41, Jack a écrit :
>>> It would be nice to have a second outlet on [pmpd], [pmpd2d] and
>>> [pmpd3d] like on MSD objects.
>> it's not very complex, but i'm really wondering why one would need it.
>> i'll make it if you convince me that it's usefull.
> Yep :)
> It is useful because you can see in the console the masses created with
> their id and links created between two masses with their id. So it is
> useful to debug.
use the print message for this.

>>
>>> The 54_pmpd_wave.pd example doesn't work here.
>>> [pmpd] seems to have a problem.
>> i correct a problem after the official annonce. could you make sur you have the last version (svn update)
>> thanks
>> and tell me if that solve the pb.
> It seems it doesn't solve the problem because i compiled pmpd today
> (sources from svn) :
> $ svn up
> À la révision 14977.
hum, this example work here.
what is exactly the problem for you?

>>
>>> Do test and interaction objects work with [pmpd], [pmpd2d] and [pmpd3d]
>>> masses ?
>> no
>>
>> from a technical point of view, they could be working. but pmpd* are really MSD* clone.
>> and the philosophies is a bit different.
> OK.
>> you can very easilly make 100 connections. that should replace interactor objects.
> I tried to make a segment (like [iSeg]) of several masses in the past
> but it was not a good solution. I guess the best solution is to test
> position of each mass and then add force on it.
>>
>> but yes, pmpd have a wider range of interactor shape, so it may be interesting someday to make them work.
> Would be nice !
that's more work that i did not planed to do yet.
c

> ++
>
> Jack
>
>
>>
>> ++
>> c
>>
>>
>>> ++
>>>
>>> Jack
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Le jeudi 24 février 2011 à 19:04 +0100, cyrille henry a écrit :
>>>> hello,
>>>> i've made a new pmpd version.
>>>> There is 3 new objects : pmpd, pmpd2d and pmpd3d.
>>>> this 3 objects should replace MSD. most of the time, they are compatible.
>>>> there is few differences anyway :
>>>> - few messages get renamed (both on input or output)
>>>> - there is a difference on the calculation of tLink Damping
>>>> - there is now a damping associate with each masses
>>>> - there are more messages to get simulation data
>>>>
>>>> I encourage anyone to switch from MSD to pmpd, since MSD will not be maintained.
>>>>
>>>> help / examples / sources can be found on pd svn.
>>>>
>>>> Cyrille
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Pd-announce mailing list
>>>> Pd-announce at iem.at
>>>> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-announce
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Pd-list at iem.at mailing list
>>>> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->   http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Pd-list at iem.at mailing list
>>> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->   http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Pd-list at iem.at mailing list
>> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->  http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pd-list at iem.at mailing list
> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->  http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list