What to use for PSingle?

[woodslanding]

I have a script based on the simple audio example script from v5. But it requires some values of type PSingle.

V6 does not recognize this type. What do I use instead? There are no audio example scripts that I can see in the new browser....

[bsork]

PSingle is a pointer type, and to me it seems that pointer types aren't allowed in the new version (so far?). Using ^Single instead of the predefined PSingle type didn't help. GetDataPointer() is also missing.

Here's an attempt at doing the old audio example in a different way:

Code: Select all

/////////////////////////////////////////////
// Audio Volume
// Simple Audio Volume Script
////////////////////////////////////////////

// parameters declaration
var input    : Tparameter;
var output   : Tparameter;
var gain     : TParameter;


// initialisation : create parameters
procedure init;
begin  
 Input := CreateParam('In',ptaudio);
 output := CreateParam('out',ptaudio);
 gain := CreateParam('gain',ptDataFader);          
 
 SetIsOutPut(Input,false);
 SetIsOutPut(Gain,false);        
 SetIsInPut(Output,false);
 SetMin(gain,0);
 SetMax(gain,1);
 Setvalue(gain,1); 
 SetLength(output,BLOCSIZE); 
                                     
end;


// Global variables
var i            : integer;                   
//var pin,pout : PSingle;
var g : single;

//////////////////////////////
// main proc
//////////////////////////////
procedure Process;
begin
 //pIn := GetdataPointer(0); 
 //pOut := GetdataPointer(1);
 g := GetValue(2); 

 for i := 0 to BLOCSIZE-1
 do begin
   //pout^:= pin^*g;
   //incptr(pin);
   //incptr(pout)
    SetDataArrayValue(1, i, GetDataArrayValue(0, i)*g);   
 end;                                                    
end;

This works, but uses a lot CPU.

I tried the same in V5, and there both versions of the script worked, and both used negligible CPU.

[senso]

Because of the cross platform implementation (WIN,OSX,64) we use a new script engine which is less CPU friendly.
That's why the the V5 script-pointers capabilities are not available in Hollyhock.
No solution actually except rewrite a new script engine and it could take years...

But we made a particular effort to simplify the SDK. A user module is a very good option for intensive data manipulations?

[woodslanding]

Okay, that's good to know. I'll lay off the scripts. And I'll look into the SDK.

But for now, I realized my script doesn't need to work in the audio path anyway, it can just create a control signal for a volume module.

But I may just use modules anyway if the script engine is not cpu friendly. I mostly did it to save CPU!

cheers,
-e

[woodslanding]

Wow, no joke!

A simple midi change channel script takes ..33% on my quad-core i7!

16 of those, that's 5% CPU just to change midi channels.

Seems like a set of basic midi tools would be a good use for the SDK. Or nice to have as basic modules....

I'll see if it's cheaper to convert to and from midi using modules.

EDIT: that brings it down by about half. Guess that's the better choice.

[23fx23]

,;:, damned macs^^ :p

[seamus]

I replaced some midi scripts with the midi transformer and my patch became 50% more efficient.
Thanks for the tip!

[senso]

check also the Midi multi-filter

[senso]

slowly I'll replace all midi scripts by modules which are 100x faster

[seamus]

Thanks senso!