[gmpi] Re: Reqs 3.8 Events - ramped events
- From: Steve Harris <S.W.Harris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2003 16:16:07 +0000
On Tue, Dec 23, 2003 at 03:28:41 -0800, Tim Hockin wrote:
> on ramped events, and whether we need them:
>
> A few people have spoken up saying "yes", we need ramed events. This si
> what I have gleaned:
>
> * If and only if the plugin indicates that a particular control can be
> ramped, the host can send ramp events. Ramp events are linear ramps, for
> now, with the possibility of adding different ramp types later.
I'd like to not rule out modular synth style plugins, where the plugin is
generating control events. The plugin will gen generating output events,
but would have to know if the receiver could handle ramps or not.
Might it not be better to have a system like XAP where "ramps" and "sets"
had a unified representation (IIRC). That way we dont have to worry about
some ports not accepting/wanting ramp data as they can just ignore the
slope.
> I don't like the term 'point-value events'. Can we say 'set events' or
> 'immediate events' or something else? Does anyone want to voice any more
> arguments against ramped events?
I think we need ramped events if we have timestamped events otherwise you
end up with statements like "the new value should be interpolated to quite
quickly", which is a bit vague for common usage.
- 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: //www.freelists.org/archives/gmpi
Email gmpi-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx w/ subject "unsubscribe" to unsubscribe
Other related posts:
