[gmpi] Re: 3.11 topic: Inter-parameter linkages
- From: Tim Hockin <thockin@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2004 16:00:15 -0700
On Sat, Apr 10, 2004 at 10:26:42PM +0100, Steve Harris wrote:
> This situation is perfectly reasonable, and deterministic, as long as we
> dont allow plugins to change thier own inputs. If it is the case that
> plugin changing thier inputs is a real requirement then we will have to
> work round this somehow.
Right, we've got some desired behaviors that we're trying to clarify and
justify. If they really are wrong, I'll totally withdraw from this
argument. But I haven't seen a convincing argument that they are, yet.
For some interesting things being done in VST right now - look at
http://www.melohman.com
Is anyone from Ohm Force here?
> > FIne, those simple plugins are not likely to have DSP-based morphing or
> > continuous randomization. Or at least, it isn't likely to be used in this
> > case.
>
> What makes you think that?
A hunch that anything that is advanced enough to support morphing will
PROBABLY not be stcu as a mono only plugin. Like I said - it should be EASY
to change a mono plugin into an N-way plugin. There should be no such thing
as a mono-only GMPI plugin, except by intentional design.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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: //www.freelists.org/archives/gmpi
Email gmpi-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx w/ subject "unsubscribe" to unsubscribe
Other related posts:
