Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote: > > Martin Peach wrote: > >> IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote: > > > > OK, I changed packOSC to output negative delays and it's now
Oops, that should say unpackOSC... > > obvious, even on the same machine a "current" time tag always has a > > slight negative delay, whereas an "immediate" time tag is always > > exactly zero. > > That leaves the slight problem of a "future" message that arrives > > exactly on time... > > Martin > > Wow, nice work! That sounds like it'll be quite easy to use timetags > now. Is there anyway to generate timetags with Pd yet? Well, packOSC does that when you open a bundle, you can also specify an offset. Is there a need for actual raw timetags? I started an external to generate them as a list of four floats (64 bits split into four 16-bit numbers). Then I realized it's easier to use millisecond delays since that's what pd is using, so unpackOSC just converts the received time tag into a millisecond delay relative to the current time. This could be altered easily by adding a constant at the outlet. Martin _______________________________________________ PD-dev mailing list PD-dev@iem.at http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
