[PD] OSC limitations in Vanilla
jmmmpais at gmail.com
Sun Apr 18 13:03:06 CEST 2021
I think I had problems in the past for not having [routeOSC] and
[packOSC] when sending/receiving from other software such as reaper, but
I can't confirm anymore. Other softwares will work with mrpeach, but not
necessarily with vanilla.
It's also convenient to use routeOSC for a cleaner patch structure, as
it allows a route-style tree sorting.
> I asked this on the facebook group, thought I'd ask it here as well.
> Who cannot be happy with vanilla's OSC support and still needs mrpeach
> and stuff? I mean, really really need as in there's no way to deal
> with such OSC tasks in Vanilla. Tell me what exactly please... I know
> that it can happen and how, I just wanted examples in the real world,
> and I also believe Vanilla is fine for most use cases.
> I just never use OSC as all I do is inside Pd anyway :)
> I see [netsend]/[netreceive] make [udpsend]/[udpreceive] obsolete
> these days for OSC... but we also have [routeOSC] and [packOSC], and
> in Vanilla's documentation we see this: ~/no attempt is made here to
> clearly distinguish between the OSC address (symbols) and the
> following data, nor between blobs and lists of numbers - it is assumed
> that you know what types the message should contain. You can
> alternatively use the OSC objects from mrpeach which have more
> features than these./~
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Pd-list