6/11/2023 0 Comments Name mangler advanced examples![]() ![]() this is actually called from Control with a ControlName object Index, rate, defaultValue, argNum, lag ? 0.0) for Ndefs, you may or may not want different \gate in each. This isn’t advertised in the help, but it does work properly, if you’re careful to deepCopy the SynthDef before making changes. not recompiling (=rebuilding the ugen graph) function at all. If you don’t need such internal combining though, it turns out it’s possible to a have simpler step that does a sort of linker-like renaming just on the SynthDef, i.e. The simpler philosophy being that you just instantiate them as separate synths and route them as needed on the server. Generally speaking, it looks like this approach of internally combining previously encapsulated user stuff into bigger SynthDefs isn’t favored much in SC. (Faust’s approach to a more purely functional composition abstraction certainly helps work around such issues.) use LocalIn and LocalOut, which mine often do, because you can only have one of those local things per synth so combining such filters with SynthDef.wrap will probably not work even if you manage to get past the control renaming issues. This won’t be enough if your filters e.g. asSymbol was probably not the best with respect to that least-code-change aspect. Just writing ~foo.kr instead of \foo.kr in the synth to access the controls is less leaky in my view. Ideally you want this magic to happen externally of your synth function code and as much as possible transparently, meaning without changing the (filter) synth code much. I do think it would be a good idea to apply it to all existing TLP servers retroactively as it does seem they are happy with it as they are adding it to new servers.Sure, that was my first idea, but it’s a pretty leaky abstraction because all your (filter) synths now need to internally know to auto-number their controls. However it seems like they are going to start applying it to new TLP servers going forward. ”When they announced the relaxed truebox feature they stated they would evaluate doing it on other servers but at this time they have not announced doing it on any of the existing servers. Maybe think of that last bit like Aradune/Rizlona. Removing our truebox would give us a slight benefit not only to replenish some pop via boxes but also maybe make it more appealing to choose Thornblade over Mischief to start a new char on. Thornblade also has a low pop even though we have the same rules as Mischief. We are at that point where they decided it may be ok to remove truebox entirely from a TLP. OoW will have relaxed truebox (3 accounts) and TBS will have truebox removed. It was mentioned that if it went well they would remove truebox from another TLP. But I think currently the only TLP that had its truebox removed is Vaniki. ”It did sound like it was linking the server population cap being hit to truebox. But should be considered for removal when appropriate. With that being said (IMO) truebox at the start of an expac is perfectly fine. What he said is when a server hits a certain expac, or population (meaning the server does not have a good population) then implement relaxed truebox, or remove it entirely. ↑ “ Not sure I read where he said Truebox is meant to lower the number of players. In a lot of ways its ridiculous not to remove it from TLPs that could benefit from its removal. ![]() The fact that they already implement these things on Vaniki and Oakwynd already has a truebox schedule proves that truebox isn't a set in stone thing. Let them pay for extra accounts and make DB more moneys. Allow the (legit) players to box on one PC. At this point truebox doesn't need to be on a server. The reality is when a server pop gets to low there's not many people to group with. The original idea of truebox may have been to encourage grouping (and block you know what). ”Not sure I read where he said Truebox is meant to lower the number of players. ↑ “ From my understanding truebox wasn't implemented to lower the number of players on the server but to encourage grouping with other players instead of running a box army. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |