[PD] sanity check on workings of pd~

[cyrille henry]

Le 07/04/2016 06:58, Jonathan Wilkes via Pd-list a écrit :
>  > Running 2 instance of pd communicating with network socket is very different than using pd/pd~
>
> Right, but like you said if you have video meeting its deadlines in one process and audio meeting its
> deadlines in another process, the pd/pd~ approach should meet the user's needs.
>
> Furthermore pd/pd~ offers a better user experience (i.e., run a single patch and let Pd spawn the 2nd automatically).  Given that I'd think most people would be using it for simple divisions of audio/video work,
> but messages to the list suggest otherwise.

really? i should send more mail then.
I'm a big fan of pd~.


  So I'm wondering if the increased cpu usage of pd~ is
> significant enough to be driving users to the worse UX in order to get the efficiency.

communication between pd and pd~ is the only drawback of pd~ usage in my opinion.
but it's a sample accurate communication. something that can't be done otherwise.
if you need this precision, you don't have any choice.

My use of pd~ is not for splitting audio and video, but mostly to split heavy physical modelling and audio-video rendering.
physical modelling use and generate lot's of data that can't go throw pd~ inlet and outlet, that where the shermem external become useful.

cheers
c

  
>
> -Jonathan
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pd-list at lists.iem.at mailing list
> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
>