Have a look at this patch... ++ Jack
Le lundi 31 janvier 2011 à 16:53 +0100, Matteo Sisti Sette a écrit : > Hi, > > I get some strange behaviour with the attached patch which is basically: > > [gemhead] > | > | > | [0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 ( > | | > [pix_set] > | > | | \ // numbox attached to the second i.e. "common" inlet > | | > [pix_gain 1] > | > [pix_texture] > | > [rectangle] > > > 1) When I send a new value to pix_gain's inlet, the output is not > updated until I re-send the pixel color values to pix_set. > > 2) If I modify the pix_gain object and change its creation argument > (which means the object is recreated), the pix_set seems to be reset as > well: the rectangle resets to white, as if the pix_set objet was > recreated. I have to re-send the pixel values to pix_set. After doing > this, the pixel colors are as expected and the gain is applied correctly > > > Why doesn't the pix_gain update its output when a new value of the gain > is applied? > > Why does pix_set reset when I recreate the pix_gain object? > > Is all this expected behaviour and I am missing something? > > thanks > m. > _______________________________________________ > Pd-list@iem.at mailing list > UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> > http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
test1.pd
Description: application/extension-pd
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
