[nama] Re: Runtime limit
- From: Julien Claassen <julien@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: Joel Roth <joelz@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2012 12:41:53 +0200 (CEST)
Hello Joel!
This is an interesting problem, you are working on there. Highly
appreciated!
I think we once had something akin to that or at least discussed it. What
about extra tme for track caching to allow for caching the tails of reverbs
and similar effects. So we might expand on that. If a track has a length, no
problem, limit the runtime to track length plus a safety margin, configurable
via namarc.
If a track has a life or null input - and thus no length can be determined
-, we might look for the longest track in the setup, add the safety margin and
process it. That of course would really warrant information about this
behaviour printed to the screen, so the user knows about it.
In the long run, I wouldn't go with runtime_limit and no_runtime_limit, but
a set_processing_time, which is active for the next engine run. So the user
can decide,if she wants to go with Nama's estimate or if she'd rather set her
own processing time for the next cache or mixdown.
The commands are very debatable yet. but what do you think about the general
notion? Joel? Massy? Joy, you old bugger? :-)
Warmly yours
Julien
050e010d0f12010401-0405-0d09-030f12011a0f0d-
Such Is Life: Very Intensely Adorable;
Free And Jubilating Amazement Revels, Dancing On - FLOWERS!
******** Find some music at ********
http://juliencoder.de/nama/music.html
---------------------------------------------------------------
"If you live to be 100, I hope I live to be 95 and 37 days,
so I can be sure, there's someone at your site, who loves you."
(Not Winnie the Puh)
Other related posts:
