abstraction-like as max5's guys call it ...?

[protofuse]

I used to use Max' abstractions.
For those who don't know what they are, they are a way to create/reuse easily subpatches.
Example: I create a subpatch I know I'll reuse a lot. I include it (as an abstraction) in another patches. If I upgrade the abstraction, all the patches including it will be updated at loading time.

What should I use in Usine?


best,

[23fx23]

you can use the re/load patch module/command, if i well remember there is a module called "load patch" in /interface control.
or when you are in the subpatch you can make 'reload patch'.

if wanna make it automatic then you can use a bus connected to a module "init" (as well in interface control) to send the pulse for the load patch module.

[nay-seven]

Never test, but i suppose you can find a work around with the on initialization module link to a load patch one.
This way it's reload your sub-patches each time ..?

there's also the templates way , check the files/ templates folder to see examples, it's based on the IML language, easy for you i think
or maybe a way with scripts too ..
as you know always many ways...

ok, cross post..you win 23fx

[protofuse]

thanks to both of you.

nay-seven, I cannot find load patch module
This workaround could work fine.
I'd probably use [On Activation] instead of [On Initialization] in order to easily "reload" my patchstraction (I created this word now, I like it).

[ErotiCore SteNch]

thanks to both of you.

nay-seven, I cannot find load patch module
This workaround could work fine.
I'd probably use [On Activation] instead of [On Initialization] in order to easily "reload" my patchstraction (I created this word now, I like it).

theres a serach line in the top of the browser,just tried it and it found a load patch module

[protofuse]

thanks to both of you.

nay-seven, I cannot find load patch module
This workaround could work fine.
I'd probably use [On Activation] instead of [On Initialization] in order to easily "reload" my patchstraction (I created this word now, I like it).

theres a serach line in the top of the browser,just tried it and it found a load patch module

I did.
It doesn't.

[nay-seven]

strange, works here
anyway, it's in modules/interface control/

[protofuse]

ok.
not in easine, but in usine.

I guess I can use it in easine too.
trying

[protofuse]

oups I guess I cannot use it (it is related to line/track which has no sense with easine)
I'll find another way.

[nay-seven]

if you let line1, track1, will works

[protofuse]

I want to load only one of the part (a subpatch) of the patch, not the whole one.

I'll deal without that.
I'm sure things will be improved so.. I trust the future

[woodslanding]

I think it would be really helpful to have this feature. Logic has something called 'aliases'. They are like copies, but the internal data is locked to the original, so when you change the original, all the aliases update.

This is also the concept of classes in object oriented programming, the aliases becoming instances. The important thing is you can code to an interface--a specific set of inputs and outputs, and you can create a 'black box' where what goes on inside can be changed, as long as the ports stay constant.

The biggest problem with implementing this in Usine, is that you have to make sure your inputs and outputs do not change when you update your original object, otherwise the cabling to all the aliases would break. And it's difficult to precisely control the ins and outs of a subpatch in usine--some modules show ins and outs whether you want them there or not, order is dependent on internal layout, and usine references ins and outs by number rather than name.... even in the case of a vst, where ins and outs follow a specific pattern, with only variations in audio input and output counts, usine is unable to replace one with another, because it references the ports only by number....

So I think abstraction is still a far-off concept for usine.

How do you find usine compares with Max? I keep thinking about Max, but switching is so much work. I would love to have abstractions, but I'm afraid there are many things I count on in usine that max can't do, and I probably couldn't find that out without working with it for a year or so.

-e

[gurulogic]

What about using a new line in the patch grid to simulate a "sub patch" that can be recalled with load patch? You could use an array to condense all data lines in the master patch to a single bus to link all the data inlets etc to the "sub patch". And of course you can easily have lots of audio channels flowing from one line to another.If you set this "sub patch" emulation to reload when loading a workspace, then it would always be refreshed from the master copy... aka aliased ?

[protofuse]

I

How do you find usine compares with Max? I keep thinking about Max, but switching is so much work. I would love to have abstractions, but I'm afraid there are many things I count on in usine that max can't do, and I probably couldn't find that out without working with it for a year or so.

-e

Unfortunately, I had to put my Usine test a bit on the side, working on many projects at the same time.
But I'm VERY convinced Usine is already a mature framework and ... it will be improved a lot at the same time.
I'd reconsider it especially in 2 needs I have:
- VST design (I need to have global binaries + a UI totally designed without any trace of Usine inside)
- osx support

If they go there, it is very probable that I'll use it a lot.


Compared to max.
It is hard.
It isn't the same philosophy even if it is the same graphical paradigm.
Let's test max6 (which has been released as beta: http://cycling74.com/downloads/max-6-public-beta) and let's see the future

[CleverConQueso]

Comparisons to Max are fair but one is not the replacement for the other - I think of Max as making sounds and Usine as making music. I'm sure others have other ideas but that's the way I decide which to use. Also, the Usine interface is set up for a musician first, rather than for a programmer, with a further emphasis on live performance. You can slice and dice the tool any way you want to use it but it's got the greatest efficiency when you think of it as a live studio rack. As for which is harder/easier if you want to make music, Usine is much easier to get pretty good at faster. If you're trying to replace Max with something less expensive, try PD or Processing.
- CCQ -

[protofuse]

Comparisons to Max are fair but one is not the replacement for the other - I think of Max as making sounds and Usine as making music. I'm sure others have other ideas but that's the way I decide which to use. Also, the Usine interface is set up for a musician first, rather than for a programmer, with a further emphasis on live performance. You can slice and dice the tool any way you want to use it but it's got the greatest efficiency when you think of it as a live studio rack. As for which is harder/easier if you want to make music, Usine is much easier to get pretty good at faster. If you're trying to replace Max with something less expensive, try PD or Processing.
- CCQ -

I agree, a bit, not totally.
Max isn't a DAW and a great feature of Usine is ... to have that DAW "option with many tracks etc.
Max for Live drives Max inside a real huge & rocky DAW ; which means, as you wrote, that Max only isn't enough for a lot of musicians.
It doesn't target only musicians, btw.

About Processing, it is totally different, even if it is easy to prototype things & more, it is a superset of Java in a nice ide. No more (but no less)

Personnally, I'm making music with max.. building sequencers, micro-tonal textures & more.
So, as many other users, I consider max as a music tools, not only a sound tool. It would be crazy to forget about all the midi/timing/temp/transport & more objects about that.
Indeed, it depends on the music you are making.

And, as I often say, no tools better or worst... the best tool for you is the one which fits your needs.