Just wondering if there's a way to modify the settings pane parameters from outside QC (i.e. in an app). There are cases where it'd be nice to switch between 8/16 bit rendering in a render in image patch for example.
All the inspector panel classes are in the QC framework, so you should be able to do it with the unofficial API... but officially, no, settings panes are locked outside of the editor (one reason I think they're stupid... :( )
Pretty much as expected :/ I guess it must have made sense when QC was built, and really 99% of the time it's only the inputs you want to change. Frustrating when you hit that 1% though :)
...and beyond the case of representing things you can't control with patch-inputs, i hate patches having lots and lots of inputs, when there's only a few that you actively change. kineme named structure maker is a useability nightmare from that perspective (the ports aren't named as to what they do, and you have to be really careful about getting every other port).
but to get back from my pointless tangent: programatically, in the official api, the variables they controlled are published to qc and are kvc'd, so i wonder if there is a way of grabbing them from a host app.
I tend to use JavaScript to make my structs in QC. That way you can nicely name the inputs to the JS patch, plus you can do stuff to the control values at the same time as combining them together into a single structure output.
To defend my position (and clarify a bit) [not making an argument]:
I think inspectors are perfect for things that don't make sense to change on the fly (number of ports, or source code that controls ports, for example). I think they're stupid for things that can be changed on the fly without requiring the editor to change things. (like this case).
For ports, I think the following features would be nice:
* a way to separate input/output ports to make logical groups.
* a way to hide ports (or groups) you aren't interested in (for compactness)
Sorry about structure maker being a pain -- I'll try to address this in a future release.
tee hee... i had a line about hiding ports being a desirable feature, but god rid of it as the tangent was spiralling out of control =]
re. structure maker, once i worked out how to dynamically create ports i was going to make my own with keys in the settings panel and send it over. i had a go for an earlier plugin (enumerated type patch for driving multiplexer index from strings), but it wasn't working from my understanding of the documentation. on the list =]
All the inspector panel classes are in the QC framework, so you should be able to do it with the unofficial API... but officially, no, settings panes are locked outside of the editor (one reason I think they're stupid... :( )
Pretty much as expected :/ I guess it must have made sense when QC was built, and really 99% of the time it's only the inputs you want to change. Frustrating when you hit that 1% though :)
...and beyond the case of representing things you can't control with patch-inputs, i hate patches having lots and lots of inputs, when there's only a few that you actively change. kineme named structure maker is a useability nightmare from that perspective (the ports aren't named as to what they do, and you have to be really careful about getting every other port).
but to get back from my pointless tangent: programatically, in the official api, the variables they controlled are published to qc and are kvc'd, so i wonder if there is a way of grabbing them from a host app.
I tend to use JavaScript to make my structs in QC. That way you can nicely name the inputs to the JS patch, plus you can do stuff to the control values at the same time as combining them together into a single structure output.
a|x http://machinesdontcare.wordpress.com
To defend my position (and clarify a bit) [not making an argument]:
I think inspectors are perfect for things that don't make sense to change on the fly (number of ports, or source code that controls ports, for example). I think they're stupid for things that can be changed on the fly without requiring the editor to change things. (like this case).
For ports, I think the following features would be nice: * a way to separate input/output ports to make logical groups. * a way to hide ports (or groups) you aren't interested in (for compactness)
Sorry about structure maker being a pain -- I'll try to address this in a future release.
tee hee... i had a line about hiding ports being a desirable feature, but god rid of it as the tangent was spiralling out of control =]
re. structure maker, once i worked out how to dynamically create ports i was going to make my own with keys in the settings panel and send it over. i had a go for an earlier plugin (enumerated type patch for driving multiplexer index from strings), but it wasn't working from my understanding of the documentation. on the list =]