Roman Haefeli a écrit : > On Sat, 2007-06-23 at 06:59 -0400, Mathieu Bouchard wrote: > >> On Fri, 22 Jun 2007, Enrique Erne wrote: >> >>> On Jun 22, 2007, at 6:54 PM, Roman Haefeli wrote: >>> >>>> lets assume you want to schedule the next 'bang' to 43s297ms, but >>>> the output of [timer] maybe is '43 296', '43 296', '43 298'. >>>> won't be hit at all. then i think, that this approach wouldn't be >>>> accurate at all, since there is no logical time involved. the advantage >>>> of logical time is, >>>> >>> i think your totally right... too bad. >>> >> Then both of you need to read the helpfile of [timer] and compare it with >> the one of [realtime]: [timer] works in logical time only. >> > > oops, i meant to talk about a solution based on zexy's [time], not on > [timer] (typo). however, since there is [realtime], it wouldn't make > much sense to use [timer]. you could reach the same with both. > > roman > > following the doc it is clear that there is a big difference between [timer] and [realtime], I don't understand what is the meaning of 'same with both' in your sentence. If the 'universal space-time continuum' model makes sense, only the acceleration of motion between the computers running the Real Time metronome could shift the counting.
_______________________________________________ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list