[gmpi] Re: Requirements sections 3.4 and 3.5

On Mon, Nov 24, 2003 at 09:27:21 -0800, Tim Hockin wrote:
> What you're missing (though you like to focus on it) is the end user
> experience.  As an end user, I don't have 15 GHz available.  I want to
> listen to my stuff realtime.  So I lower the quality on these monster
> plugins.  Then I render.  Oops!  I forgot to turn up the quality on ALL my
> plugins again.  More than 1 or 2 of those plugins, and it's VERY
> frustrating.
> 
> Standardizing it allows the host to know which plugins conform, and lets it
> handle that automagically.

There are big problems with automatic handling - If i'd written a plugin a
few years back and you scaled back the quality control it would most likly
drop back to using a table for its sin() calculations etc., well on a
modern machine that might well be slower than just running the sin()
approximation (this might well reverse again in the future). So you could
end up with a situation where the host notices its runing out of cpu, scales
back the quality and the cpu load goes up.

I think my point is that quality and cpu load are neccesarily related in
the way they were on the authors machine. So, state a well-known name and
semantics for a quality control port by all means, but I think making it
automatable is a very bad idea.

- Steve 

----------------------------------------------------------------------
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

Other related posts: