I am looking at CPU usage per DataBus for handling of send and receive and the potential to send and receive to multiple and a complex amount of nodes.
Wow very messy if wired like I want, wow too much CPU if data bussed.
Yes a very big patch I am trying to optimize but pack full of features.
The problem is, yes it looks like bussing might take quite a bit of CPU compared to wiring.
I almost think I could get at least 16x or more (Probably way more than that but just guessing) the CPU advantage of wiring over bussing.
I wish there was a way to hide wires, so when a rats nest is the way to go....it is not so complicated to manage.
I know its a lot of modules, but it would be such a good idea to have "hide/show" wires on each. Or when selected the wires show.
Maybe a Multi-Thru Node could be the answer....a specific flow module that can hide or show.
-S
Wireless - Wires
The main drawback of buses is that, as they can be in separate threads (racks) they are what we call "thread safe" and it is much CPU hungry.
I'll see if I can disable "thread lock" especially if target = patch.
But in any cases they will always be CPU heavier than wires.
the show/hide wires on module doesn't look as a so good idea in my mind. Be sure that sensomusic support will quickly overloaded....
I'll see if I can disable "thread lock" especially if target = patch.
But in any cases they will always be CPU heavier than wires.
the show/hide wires on module doesn't look as a so good idea in my mind. Be sure that sensomusic support will quickly overloaded....
Olivier Sens
www.brainmodular.com
www.brainmodular.com
Yes I could see that, "my wires all disappeared".the show/hide wires on module doesn't look as a so good idea in my mind. Be sure that sensomusic support will quickly overloaded....smile
I do like the idea of an optimized bus if within the patch, now does this include sub-patch as well (of course within the main patch)
? Just curious. I think I recall options of "rack", and "all of usine". -S
"Every act of creation is first an act of destruction." -Picasso
-
sm_jamieson
- Member
- Posts: 559
- Contact:
I am having this problem with my midi controller patch, which has many wires in both directions in order to receive and control the sliders, buttons, etc., and all this per "zone". It is a result of the "wiring up" interface. When used to wire up modules to a script, it is quite an unusual technique. I think my script has about 150 parameters.
Compare it to something like javascript controlling a page of combi boxes, data fields etc. No wires are involved there, you just refer to the component using its name or ID. And if you compare "builder" type applications, where when you add a widget you have a template coding hook made automatically.
The advantage of wires is that they define a "visual interface" that stops other scripts controlling your patches modules.
The other difficult thing in a script is that the parameter numbers change if you insert a new parameter - parameters cannot be given a fixed ID or name.
For the main audio or midi chain I think that wiring is a very good method, but it would be useful to be able to access and modify visual components - sliders, buttons, etc without needing wires to and from the components for read/write access to them. You might be able to do this using IML - I'm not sure. Or you could make a custom module using the SDK and accessing GUI widgets directly.
The other thing that would be useful is a "form" module that enables you to define multiple widgets within it and then perhaps sends out the values of each field in an array. I am thinking of using that approach with a sub-patch to collect together various sub-patch parameter values into an array and send it out on a single wire instead of a bunch of wires.
In general though, Usine is excellent !
Simon.
Compare it to something like javascript controlling a page of combi boxes, data fields etc. No wires are involved there, you just refer to the component using its name or ID. And if you compare "builder" type applications, where when you add a widget you have a template coding hook made automatically.
The advantage of wires is that they define a "visual interface" that stops other scripts controlling your patches modules.
The other difficult thing in a script is that the parameter numbers change if you insert a new parameter - parameters cannot be given a fixed ID or name.
For the main audio or midi chain I think that wiring is a very good method, but it would be useful to be able to access and modify visual components - sliders, buttons, etc without needing wires to and from the components for read/write access to them. You might be able to do this using IML - I'm not sure. Or you could make a custom module using the SDK and accessing GUI widgets directly.
The other thing that would be useful is a "form" module that enables you to define multiple widgets within it and then perhaps sends out the values of each field in an array. I am thinking of using that approach with a sub-patch to collect together various sub-patch parameter values into an array and send it out on a single wire instead of a bunch of wires.
In general though, Usine is excellent !
Simon.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests