From the original SynthMaker forum (2004–2014), with its members’ names and dates.
electrogear ·
One of the things that gets me about SM is the time it takes to do big projects with many duplicated modules, having to go deep into modules to find and rename links.
1) Would it be at all possible to change the ID's of wireless links dynamically? That would mean not having to have multiplexers with hundreds of individual wireless outputs! You could do this with a second input to the wireless link, which would be optional. Inputting a (non-blank) string would over-ride the initial ID.
2) Further to this, if wireless links could inherit their IDs from front panel arguments (properties) SM could start working towards a more object-oriented kind of approach. That way when you have 200 modules (as in my new sequencer with Max) you could simply synchronize all modules and when you make a change in one module you won't need to worry about going through each module in turn and naming wireless links.
exonerate ·
Good idea, I've had similar thoughts myself before. Would simplify many things and make routings much easier!
Cheers 😉
Exo
Tom7777 ·
Yeah nice idea, maybe we could have it as a new right click option 'rename all matches' and that way you still have the normal rename if you wanted to rename separately. Wireless links going upwards also has been requested as soon as the wireless system was added but has yet to happen so hopefully this will get added sometime.
electrogear ·
Cool, glad it's not just me! It would be amazing if this were introduced, like a super-flexible matrix without the footprint/CPU issues. IMO the more 'modular' you can make a piece of software the better. This is why most large programs are based on classes.
Disco_Steve ·
true modular is better in general, however there comes a point where the large number of function calls makes modular slower. So yo should only use the minimum number of functions and classes needed so that every function is self contained. now that almost all machines are multi core, classes and functions should be written as much as possible to be a stream of code that cannot run without the previous line, ie if a function cannot run because a previous function hasn't finished yet, the two could/should really be combined together. this way each function within each class (or just each class) can be, in a sense, given its own thread so that the operating system can utilise the multiple cores as effectively as possible. as we speak Intel are working on an 80 core! processor, so us programmers really need to embrace threads, and modularity (but not to much 🙂 ).
how good is SM at threading?
also I like the linking idea +1 🙂
electrogear ·
Yeah I'm with you on that one. I've seen internet applications that use functions just to call other functions, some people get a bit carried away lol. It's always going to be a matter of common sense. Forward planning is a must in those situations.
Wrote something here? To have a post removed or your name hidden, write to [email protected].
SynthMaker