One difficulty I find is organizing sub-patch nodes on the parent output.
Any Rhyme or Reason that anyone knows in cleaning up these nodes logically?
There are many cases where I add buttons or knobs, and wish that these were not exposed to the parent patch.
I assume there currently is no way to specify that this happens. Any idea if there is a possibility?
Maybe IML defined for subpatch?
-S
Sub-Patch Exclude Nodes?
I think IML/templates engine will do it, I think you have to create a new template.
I believe the link on the parent is governed by this chunk of code in the template:
2 // none=0,in=1,out=2
I haven't used them though, not sure I'd want to go there yet!
If you change the base template, then all instances of the control will be affected. So I think you need to try to create a new control with new behavior.
I believe the link on the parent is governed by this chunk of code in the template:
2 // none=0,in=1,out=2
I haven't used them though, not sure I'd want to go there yet!
If you change the base template, then all instances of the control will be affected. So I think you need to try to create a new control with new behavior.
Address the process rather than the outcome. Then, the outcome becomes more likely. - Fripp
See that is what I had thought too.
I tried to modify the current button-in template, with different variations....like the one you showed and some of the flow types, but with no positive results. I will approach again, make sure I wasn't doing something obviously wrong
(seems to be happening quite a bit...lol)
There is an IML for the sub-patch, so I am wondering if there is a way from there to do exclusions, like all buttons do not display an input, etc..
I was thinking the same thing for the child, assuming that if I modified the button input it would have not shown in the parent subpatch.
-S
I tried to modify the current button-in template, with different variations....like the one you showed and some of the flow types, but with no positive results. I will approach again, make sure I wasn't doing something obviously wrong
(seems to be happening quite a bit...lol)There is an IML for the sub-patch, so I am wondering if there is a way from there to do exclusions, like all buttons do not display an input, etc..
I was thinking the same thing for the child, assuming that if I modified the button input it would have not shown in the parent subpatch.
-S
"Every act of creation is first an act of destruction." -Picasso
-
woodslanding
- Member
- Posts: 1327
- Contact:
I have complained about this for many years. The automatic exposure of certain module ins and outs to the parent causes so much confusion. I still do not understand the thinking.
You can nest your subpatches 2 deep, but don't know what the processing penalty on that might be.
You can nest your subpatches 2 deep, but don't know what the processing penalty on that might be.
Custom Ryzen 5900x MATX build, Win10, Fireface UFX, touchscreen
Custom 2 manual midi keyboard
Usine, Kontakt, Reaktor, Synthmaster, Byome, Arturia, Soundtoys, Unify
Custom 2 manual midi keyboard
Usine, Kontakt, Reaktor, Synthmaster, Byome, Arturia, Soundtoys, Unify
I have been burying sub-patches, regardless though. I still have lots of confusion 
Just wish there was a way to organize the nodes exposed to the outside world.
-S
Just wish there was a way to organize the nodes exposed to the outside world.
-S
"Every act of creation is first an act of destruction." -Picasso
Maybe this isn't what you mean, but the vertical position of modules influences their inlet/outlet position?
I agree though, the option to expose or not nodes for subpatch buttons, faders, etc. would be nice (depending on cost).
I agree though, the option to expose or not nodes for subpatch buttons, faders, etc. would be nice (depending on cost).
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 57 guests