Am 17.12.2014 um 17:29 schrieb Scott Wilson <i@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> On 17 Dec 2014, at 13:24, Lucas Samaruga <samarugalucas@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> that was no joke (despite the smiley face), NRT is faster.
>
> Is that true even with short plots? I would’ve thought boot time would be longer.
>
> S.
Haven't checked now a NRT version of plot, but
was recently surprised by very short latency
with NRT rendering and playback.
http://new-supercollider-mailing-lists-forums-use-these.2681727.n2.nabble.com/methods-for-rendering-and-playing-functions-and-patterns-td7615291.html
IMO it would pay to think about NRT-versions of:
Function-plot (also Pattern-plot)
Function-play, Pattern-play
and maybe other similar stuff too.
Acceleration of CPU speed and storage access has
made these strategies more attractive again.
Maybe they have been neglected because of an old-fashioned image also -
RT was a stunning invention some time ago.
Though I wouldn't recommend replacing immediately.
As NRT doesn't seem to be so widely used there
might be unknown issues.
IIRC a known one is a problem with overlapping,
NRT-processes have to be sequenced under certain circumstances.
Greetings
Daniel
-----------------------------
www.daniel-mayer.at
-----------------------------
_______________________________________________
sc-users mailing list
info (subscription, etc.): http://www.beast.bham.ac.uk/research/sc_mailing_lists.shtml
archive: https://listarc.bham.ac.uk/marchives/sc-users/
search: https://listarc.bham.ac.uk/lists/sc-users/search/