![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
next newest topic | next oldest topic |
Author | Topic: InterpolatePresets problem | |
Phi Curtis Member |
![]() ![]() ![]()
I've found a problem with the InterpolatePresets sound, which is demonstrated in the attached file. Probably it is best understood by looking at my attachment, but here is the description: The problem occurs if several identical values appear in adjacent presets, that are then automated with an InterpolatePresets sound. Say !Value is a hot fader you want to automate with the use of InterpolatePresets. If you have 5 values of 0 saved for the first five presets for !Value, and then a value of 1 for the final preset, when the InterpolatePresets fader (!Preset) is used, the !Value parameter should stay at 0 for the first 5/6ths of !Preset, and move from 0 to 1 within the last 1/6th of the !Preset range. Instead, it moves from 0 to 1 evenly over the entire range of !Preset, as can be seen in the attachment. There is a way of getting around this problem: you can assign a preset value very close to 0 for the 5th preset, but not 0, and in this way force the values to remain very close to 0 for the first 5/6ths of the range of !Preset. That way it has something close to 0 to interpolate to over the first 5/6ths of !Preset, and it does pretty much what I had intended. Unfortunately, it adds quite a bit more trouble to go to in setting up your presets, because you have to notice if your adjacent presets are repeating values. I assume this wasn't the way it was intended to work? thanks, [This message has been edited by Phi Curtis (edited 30 August 2008).] IP: Logged | |
Phi Curtis Member |
![]() ![]() ![]() SCC, have you been able to take a look at this yet? Thanks, IP: Logged | |
SSC Administrator |
![]() ![]() ![]() OK, this has been fixed and will show up in the next update. (It was an oversight in an optimization that tries to remove unnecessary endpoints). In the interim (before the next update, that is), you could get around this by making minute changes to your static values in each preset (small enough not to be noticeable). Any values that are different from adjacent values won't be optimized away, no matter how small the difference. Thanks for finding this! IP: Logged | |
Phi Curtis Member |
![]() ![]() ![]() Thanks! I saw the item about the optimization in the "What New in 6.54" notes and thought that could have been it. IP: Logged |
All times are CT (US) | next newest topic | next oldest topic |
![]() ![]() |
This forum is provided solely for the support and edification of the customers of Symbolic Sound Corporation.