ArrayArrayArrayArrayArrayArrayArray BrainModular BrainModular Users Forum 2013-07-28T17:10:51+02:00 https://brainmodular.org/forums/app.php/feed/topic/3974 2013-07-28T17:10:51+02:00 2013-07-28T17:10:51+02:00 https://brainmodular.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3974&p=27359#p27359 <![CDATA[Sub Patch Global Update]]> But don't quote me on that ;-)

But I agree, just user defined inputs and outputs would be preferable, even if the other things talked about in this thread shouldn't be possible.

Cheers,

Tom

Statistics: Posted by Thomas Helzle — 28 Jul 2013, 17:10

]]> 2013-07-28T14:45:47+02:00 2013-07-28T14:45:47+02:00 https://brainmodular.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3974&p=27358#p27358 <![CDATA[Sub Patch Global Update]]> Statistics: Posted by ceasless — 28 Jul 2013, 14:45

]]> 2013-07-28T13:42:46+02:00 2013-07-28T13:42:46+02:00 https://brainmodular.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3974&p=27356#p27356 <![CDATA[Sub Patch Global Update]]> In Softimage XSIs very advanced node editor, you define in's and out's for compounds (=subpatches) by hand, dragging wires from your internal nodes to in and out-boards on the left and right, defining their data formate, order, names etc. This way you can change internal structures without problem.

Not sure if this would make Usine too complicated for the intended use, but it sure feels cleaner and more reliable.

Cheers,

Tom

Statistics: Posted by Thomas Helzle — 28 Jul 2013, 13:42

]]> 2013-07-26T17:53:30+02:00 2013-07-26T17:53:30+02:00 https://brainmodular.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3974&p=27344#p27344 <![CDATA[Sub Patch Global Update]]>
Unfortunately, usine does not allow you to specify the exact ins and outs you want on a subpatch, which complicates this. Certain objects always present ins and outs, whether you want them exposed or not--a long-standing complaint of mine..... so you can't exactly code to an interface in an OOP way. If you change a control type internally, it may change the ins and outs, even though the user's intended interface has not changed!

I think if you do not have absolute control over the subpatche's interface, instancing is a bad idea.

Statistics: Posted by woodslanding — 26 Jul 2013, 17:53

]]> 2013-07-26T11:58:21+02:00 2013-07-26T11:58:21+02:00 https://brainmodular.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3974&p=27343#p27343 <![CDATA[Sub Patch Global Update]]> If you set it to "instance", nothing can be changed inside, only the "master" can be changed which is reflected in all instances.
It's a pretty common idea in graphics, especially in 3D.
There you often have the option of making a copy or creating an instance/clone.

A more advanced form allows for local changes where only the unchanged parameters are inherited from the master instance and everything you change is kept local.

The latter could be too involved for Usine, but basic instancing would be very useful sometimes.

A typical problem arises, if you for instance have a custom mixer and use it in several workspaces. Now when you change the master - should it update throughout all projects using it (can be dangerous) or not (could defeat the purpose).
Quite a can of worms in the end ;-)

Cheers,

Tom

Statistics: Posted by Thomas Helzle — 26 Jul 2013, 11:58

]]> 2013-07-26T07:09:06+02:00 2013-07-26T07:09:06+02:00 https://brainmodular.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3974&p=27340#p27340 <![CDATA[Sub Patch Global Update]]>
You can sometimes get this effect by using polyphony.... but only if you use the subpatch in the same way each time....

My wkp is based around a 16 ch mixer. I use poly to create it. Then when I fix a bug, I don't have to do it 16 times.

But I agree, this would be very powerful. I guess user modules work this way. But it would be nice to have subpatches be able to do the same.

-eric

Statistics: Posted by woodslanding — 26 Jul 2013, 07:09

]]> 2013-07-25T03:35:40+02:00 2013-07-25T03:35:40+02:00 https://brainmodular.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3974&p=27333#p27333 <![CDATA[Sub Patch Global Update]]> I found I need to make a modification for efficiency in the sub-patch.

Is there anyway to modify the sub-patch and inherit the changes throughout without having to modify each subpatch in the parent?
If not this seems like it might be an extremely useful function.

-S

Statistics: Posted by sephult — 25 Jul 2013, 03:35

]]> BrainModular BrainModular Users Forum 2013-07-28T17:10:51+02:00 https://brainmodular.org/forums/app.php/feed/topic/3974 2013-07-28T17:10:51+02:00 2013-07-28T17:10:51+02:00 https://brainmodular.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3974&p=27359#p27359 <![CDATA[Sub Patch Global Update]]> But don't quote me on that ;-)

But I agree, just user defined inputs and outputs would be preferable, even if the other things talked about in this thread shouldn't be possible.

Cheers,

Tom

Statistics: Posted by Thomas Helzle — 28 Jul 2013, 17:10

]]> 2013-07-28T14:45:47+02:00 2013-07-28T14:45:47+02:00 https://brainmodular.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3974&p=27358#p27358 <![CDATA[Sub Patch Global Update]]> Statistics: Posted by ceasless — 28 Jul 2013, 14:45

]]> 2013-07-28T13:42:46+02:00 2013-07-28T13:42:46+02:00 https://brainmodular.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3974&p=27356#p27356 <![CDATA[Sub Patch Global Update]]> In Softimage XSIs very advanced node editor, you define in's and out's for compounds (=subpatches) by hand, dragging wires from your internal nodes to in and out-boards on the left and right, defining their data formate, order, names etc. This way you can change internal structures without problem.

Not sure if this would make Usine too complicated for the intended use, but it sure feels cleaner and more reliable.

Cheers,

Tom

Statistics: Posted by Thomas Helzle — 28 Jul 2013, 13:42

]]> 2013-07-26T17:53:30+02:00 2013-07-26T17:53:30+02:00 https://brainmodular.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3974&p=27344#p27344 <![CDATA[Sub Patch Global Update]]>
Unfortunately, usine does not allow you to specify the exact ins and outs you want on a subpatch, which complicates this. Certain objects always present ins and outs, whether you want them exposed or not--a long-standing complaint of mine..... so you can't exactly code to an interface in an OOP way. If you change a control type internally, it may change the ins and outs, even though the user's intended interface has not changed!

I think if you do not have absolute control over the subpatche's interface, instancing is a bad idea.

Statistics: Posted by woodslanding — 26 Jul 2013, 17:53

]]> 2013-07-26T11:58:21+02:00 2013-07-26T11:58:21+02:00 https://brainmodular.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3974&p=27343#p27343 <![CDATA[Sub Patch Global Update]]> If you set it to "instance", nothing can be changed inside, only the "master" can be changed which is reflected in all instances.
It's a pretty common idea in graphics, especially in 3D.
There you often have the option of making a copy or creating an instance/clone.

A more advanced form allows for local changes where only the unchanged parameters are inherited from the master instance and everything you change is kept local.

The latter could be too involved for Usine, but basic instancing would be very useful sometimes.

A typical problem arises, if you for instance have a custom mixer and use it in several workspaces. Now when you change the master - should it update throughout all projects using it (can be dangerous) or not (could defeat the purpose).
Quite a can of worms in the end ;-)

Cheers,

Tom

Statistics: Posted by Thomas Helzle — 26 Jul 2013, 11:58

]]> 2013-07-26T07:09:06+02:00 2013-07-26T07:09:06+02:00 https://brainmodular.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3974&p=27340#p27340 <![CDATA[Sub Patch Global Update]]>
You can sometimes get this effect by using polyphony.... but only if you use the subpatch in the same way each time....

My wkp is based around a 16 ch mixer. I use poly to create it. Then when I fix a bug, I don't have to do it 16 times.

But I agree, this would be very powerful. I guess user modules work this way. But it would be nice to have subpatches be able to do the same.

-eric

Statistics: Posted by woodslanding — 26 Jul 2013, 07:09

]]> 2013-07-25T03:35:40+02:00 2013-07-25T03:35:40+02:00 https://brainmodular.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3974&p=27333#p27333 <![CDATA[Sub Patch Global Update]]> I found I need to make a modification for efficiency in the sub-patch.

Is there anyway to modify the sub-patch and inherit the changes throughout without having to modify each subpatch in the parent?
If not this seems like it might be an extremely useful function.

-S

Statistics: Posted by sephult — 25 Jul 2013, 03:35

]]>