IML behaviour

23fx23 · Unread post by **23fx23** » 10 Jul 2009, 14:13

maybe im making something wrong, but I noticed I could send the mess once and it work, but if resend it doesn't work,
have to change the variable name to get it rework... is it possible to make it work at each send?

SET_TARGET_PATCH SENDER_PATCH

GET_VALUE 01 numout VAR
SET_VALUE test in VAR

23fx23 · Unread post by **23fx23** » 13 Jul 2009, 02:04

..ah ok found where the pb comes from: it's weird to send 2 messages at same time in different subpach from what i understand.
is there a trick to send several messages at once?

nay-seven · Unread post by **nay-seven** » 13 Jul 2009, 09:36

do you use several "send message" module linked to 1 send button...?

23fx23 · Unread post by **23fx23** » 13 Jul 2009, 14:29

hi nay, yes and no

i had a subpacth sending one message if a buss is 1, and in another subpach another message also sent if that bus is 1. and yes that bus is controlled by a button. ideally I got two "modes" that I dlike to delete/create wires in several differents subpatch relating to the mode, but seems if two messages are sent at same time, one is send, not the others.

as an example:

let's say I got a subpach A, and another B, but not in the same parent patch.
if mode is 0 then inside subpatch A all wires should go from in directy to out, same inside subpatch B.
if mode is 1 then inside subpatch A all wires should go from in to out2, same inside subpatch B

actually either subpach A or B is correctly changing wires, not booth. Itried starting booth message
with SET_TARGET_PATCH SENDER_PATCH, or with their respective patch's names, from what I feel (what id like to confirm) is usine need to execute one message first, then when all operations are done, can send a new message, but in my case this would be complicate to creates such temporisations, so I wonder if there isn't another solution maybe... maybe It's possible to send the two message in one only, changing target subpatch at the middle of message, but not sure i can access a sub-sub-sub patch, gonna try, but if anyone has an idea, highly welcome

nay-seven · Unread post by **nay-seven** » 13 Jul 2009, 14:58

not easy to answer , but a "wait one cycle" somewhere before one of the "send message"....?

23fx23 · Unread post by **23fx23** » 13 Jul 2009, 15:20

yes thanx nay ive tried this, not work with a wait one but seems if the wait is around 100ms it works..
not very handy for me as I have severals message to send, so each one would be delayed of 100ms of previous and i would get
a too long latency for final message, and i was trying this to save some cpu, all the tempo will cancel my cpu gain I guess...
arf, that would be so powerfull, but no pb, ill find a workaround, gonna try if possible control all from one mess.
thanks anyway..

YouTube · Unread post by **senso** » 13 Jul 2009, 16:20

IML messages are processed in very low priority process.
So the message can be handled in more than 100ms so the "wait 1" module isn't sufficient.
Try to use a counter to delay each message to send.

23fx23 · Unread post by **23fx23** » 13 Jul 2009, 16:40

yup thanks now it's clear.

Welcome to %s forums

IML behaviour

Login • Register