[gmpi] Re: 3.12 Control I/O
- From: Chris Grigg <gmpi-public@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 23:08:33 -0700
Koen said:
On Tuesday, May 18, 2004 5:57 AM [GMT+1=CET],
Chris Grigg <xxxgmpi-public@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Maybe we can just address this with really simple requirements
language along these lines?:
"It should be possible for any source of parameter-setting events
(for continuous controls only) to properly drive any target parameter
in the graph, irrespective of any differences between source and
destination natural value ranges. In other words, conversion to and
from normalized values must be possible and should be simple to
implement. Design of this feature are expected to make use of the
source and destination value range metadata."
Does this do the job?
I think it does, yes.
Great.
One thing though: why "continuous controls only"? I know that's what makes
sense. But maybe I would like to attach the output of a pitch tracker or
envelope follower (continuous control) to a parameter having a discrete set
of values? OTOH, you probably want to do some custom mapping in between
anyway, so maybe this should be done by an intermediate "remapper" plugin?
(just thinking out loud now)
I only meant that auto-scaling by the host is expected to be provided
between two continuous params, because that's the simple/unambiguous
case, no GUI needed. I'd agree that to go from a continuous to a
stepped thing, it's an OK complication if what I just said means a
remapper needs to be used. Advanced/handholding hosts can do that
automatically if they want, as a value-add.
-- Chris G.
Koen
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Generalized Music Plugin Interface (GMPI) public discussion list
Participation in this list is contingent upon your abiding by the
following rules: Please stay on topic. You are responsible for your own
words. Please respect your fellow subscribers. Please do not
redistribute anyone else's words without their permission.
Archive: http://www.freelists.org/archives/gmpi
Email gmpi-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx w/ subject "unsubscribe" to unsubscribe
- References:
- [gmpi] 3.12 Control I/O
- From: Tim Hockin
- [gmpi] Re: 3.12 Control I/O
- From: Chris Grigg
- [gmpi] Re: 3.12 Control I/O
- From: Tim Hockin
- [gmpi] Re: 3.12 Control I/O
- From: Chris Grigg
- [gmpi] Re: 3.12 Control I/O
- From: Tim Hockin
- [gmpi] Re: 3.12 Control I/O
- From: Chris Grigg
- [gmpi] Re: 3.12 Control I/O
- From: Tim Hockin
- [gmpi] Re: 3.12 Control I/O
- From: Jeff McClintock
- [gmpi] Re: 3.12 Control I/O
- From: Tim Hockin
- [gmpi] Re: 3.12 Control I/O
- From: Chris Grigg
- [gmpi] Re: 3.12 Control I/O
- From: Koen Tanghe
Other related posts:
- » [gmpi] 3.12 Control I/O
- » [gmpi] Re: 3.12 Control I/O
- » [gmpi] Re: 3.12 Control I/O
- » [gmpi] Re: 3.12 Control I/O
- » [gmpi] Re: 3.12 Control I/O
- » [gmpi] Re: 3.12 Control I/O
- » [gmpi] Re: 3.12 Control I/O
- » [gmpi] Re: 3.12 Control I/O
- » [gmpi] Re: 3.12 Control I/O
- » [gmpi] Re: 3.12 Control I/O
- » [gmpi] Re: 3.12 Control I/O
- » [gmpi] Re: 3.12 Control I/O
- » [gmpi] Re: 3.12 Control I/O
- » [gmpi] Re: 3.12 Control I/O
- » [gmpi] Re: 3.12 Control I/O
- » [gmpi] Re: 3.12 Control I/O
- » [gmpi] Re: 3.12 Control I/O
- » [gmpi] Re: 3.12 Control I/O
- » [gmpi] Re: 3.12 Control I/O
- » [gmpi] Re: 3.12 Control I/O
- » [gmpi] Re: 3.12 Control I/O
- » [gmpi] Re: 3.12 Control I/O
- » [gmpi] Re: 3.12 Control I/O
- » [gmpi] Re: 3.12 Control I/O
- » [gmpi] Re: 3.12 Control I/O
- » [gmpi] Re: 3.12 Control I/O
- » [gmpi] Re: 3.12 Control I/O
On Tuesday, May 18, 2004 5:57 AM [GMT+1=CET], Chris Grigg <xxxgmpi-public@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Maybe we can just address this with really simple requirements language along these lines?:
"It should be possible for any source of parameter-setting events (for continuous controls only) to properly drive any target parameter in the graph, irrespective of any differences between source and destination natural value ranges. In other words, conversion to and from normalized values must be possible and should be simple to implement. Design of this feature are expected to make use of the source and destination value range metadata."
Does this do the job?
I think it does, yes.
One thing though: why "continuous controls only"? I know that's what makes sense. But maybe I would like to attach the output of a pitch tracker or envelope follower (continuous control) to a parameter having a discrete set of values? OTOH, you probably want to do some custom mapping in between anyway, so maybe this should be done by an intermediate "remapper" plugin? (just thinking out loud now)
Koen
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Generalized Music Plugin Interface (GMPI) public discussion list Participation in this list is contingent upon your abiding by the following rules: Please stay on topic. You are responsible for your own words. Please respect your fellow subscribers. Please do not redistribute anyone else's words without their permission.
- [gmpi] 3.12 Control I/O
- From: Tim Hockin
- [gmpi] Re: 3.12 Control I/O
- From: Chris Grigg
- [gmpi] Re: 3.12 Control I/O
- From: Tim Hockin
- [gmpi] Re: 3.12 Control I/O
- From: Chris Grigg
- [gmpi] Re: 3.12 Control I/O
- From: Tim Hockin
- [gmpi] Re: 3.12 Control I/O
- From: Chris Grigg
- [gmpi] Re: 3.12 Control I/O
- From: Tim Hockin
- [gmpi] Re: 3.12 Control I/O
- From: Jeff McClintock
- [gmpi] Re: 3.12 Control I/O
- From: Tim Hockin
- [gmpi] Re: 3.12 Control I/O
- From: Chris Grigg
- [gmpi] Re: 3.12 Control I/O
- From: Koen Tanghe