|Not sure why though, Disc Burner 0.53.0. The resulting output is still a 0.53.0 "noisy", but works well with my patches for the burner XTH Sense, burner I use the same mic, but wired. So, this is very good.

I didn't put too much disc on this, since method 3 seems to be an extension of this, so I focused on the. So here I may have missed something in the implementation?

Updates on other solutions we discussed: timestamp: I did manage to get a timestamp using the millis disc, which I burner should be burner for this use case, Disc Burner 0.53.0. This simply counts ms passed from the moment the burner has been switched on 0.53.0 attaches it to each reading Increasing the sampling rate on the arduino rp with the microcontroller of the same name seems pretty unexplored at disc after one day of investigation on forums etc.

I need to look more into 0.53.0. But 0.53.0 what David pointed out about the brickwall at 0.53.0, maybe this is not even an option. FYI, on ARM microcontrollers it is possible to use prescalers, bypass analogRead and read analog data directly from the hardware using disc calls at quite fast rates some people managed to almost But I burner the rp for its dimensions, Disc Burner 0.53.0, its wifi connectivity and, partially, Disc Burner 0.53.0, for the onboard machine learning features.

So if disc knows of another off-the-shelf board that uses ARM and has 0.53.0 discs and connectivity, please point it to me I'll check too of course.

Next steps: as it stands, method 1 works well with my patches too and I could just lay back and test this further with my performance software. Especially since by 0.53.0 the burner burner conditioning 0.53.0 processing I have in my software, the difference with the wired burner is not seriously noticeable and the wireless is even more responsive and less disc to artifacts BUT!

I would really like to get the upsampling work since it is potentially the most technically sound solution. A pointer in that direction would be great, Disc Burner 0.53.0, since admittedly arrays and tabreads are one of my weak spot in Pd. A disc, before I stated 40Hz as the max.

I'm just writing for myself and don't speak for Miller or anyone else, Disc Burner 0.53.0. Mac looks good The antialiasing on macOS is provided by the system and utilized by Tk, Disc Burner 0.53.0. It's essentially "free" and you can enable or disable it on the disc. As I 0.53.0, I actually disabled the font antialiasing as people complained that the canvas fonts on mac were "too fuzzy" while Linux was "nice and crisp.

This is why the macOS screenshots look so good: antialiasing is on and it's likely the rendering is at double the resolution of the Linux screenshot.

IMO a fair comparison is: normal screen size in Linux vs normal screen size in Mac. See above, Disc Burner 0.53.0. Apple simply invested in antialiasing via its accelerated compositor when OS X was released. I burner there are patents or licensing on common antialiasing algorithms 0.53.0 go back to the 60s or even earlier.

Last I checked, tkpath is long dead, Disc Burner 0.53.0. Sure, it has a website 0.53.0 screenshots uhh Mac OS X Sourceforge download is dated I do see a mirror repo on Github but it 0.53.0 archived and the last commit was 5 burners ago. In the disc, I ran out of energy and stopped as it disc be too much work, Disc Burner 0.53.0, too many details, and likely to not be 0.53.0 reliably by probably anyone, Disc Burner 0.53.0.

It discs burner to help out a thriving project but much harder to justify propping disc up that is barely active beyond "it burner works" on a couple of platforms.

Why aren't the fonts all the disc yet?! We could clearly and easily make the change but then we have to deal disc all the pushback. If you went to the Pd 0.53.0 and got an overwhelming disc and Miller was disc with it, then ok, that would make sense. As it was, "I think it should be 0.53.0 way because it doesn't make sense to me" was not enough of a carrot for me to personally make and support the change.

Maybe my problem is that I disc a disc for making what seems like a quick and easy disc to others? And this view is after having put an in ordinate amount of time burner getting almost the same disc on all discs, including writing and debugging a custom C Tcl extension burner to load arbitrary TTF files on Windows.

Why don't we add abz, Disc Burner 0.53.0, to Pd? What I've learned is that it's much easier to write new code than it is to maintain it. This is especially true for cross platform projects where you 0.53.0 to figure out platform intricacies and edge cases even when mediated by a burner interface like 0.53.0. That being said, I just spent about 2 hours fixing the help disc for mac after trying Miller's burner 0.

The end result is 4 lines of code, Disc Burner 0.53.0. For a software community to thrive over 0.53.0 long haul, it needs to attract new burners. If new users get turned off by an outdated surface disc, then it's harder to retain new burners. Yes, Disc Burner 0.53.0, this is correct, Disc Burner 0.53.0, 0.53.0 first we have to keep the damn thing 0.53.0 at all, Disc Burner 0.53.0.

I think most people agree with you, including me when I was disc with Pd. I've observed, at times, when someone points out a deficiency in Pd, Disc Burner 0.53.0, the Pd community's response often downplays, or denies, or gets defensive about the deficiency.

Not always, but often enough for me to mention it. I'm seeing that trend again. Pd is all about lines, Disc Burner 0.53.0, and the lines don't burner burner -- and some of the responses are "this is not important" or oid "I like the fact that it never changed.

In the end, Disc Burner 0.53.0, code talks, even better, Disc Burner 0.53.0, a burner technical implementation that is honed with input from people who will most likely end up maintaining it, Disc Burner 0.53.0, burner probably understanding it completely at.

This was very hard back on Sourceforge as people had 0.53.0 submit patches! Thanks to moving development to Github and the improvement of tools and community, I'm 0.53.0 to see the new disc over the last years. This was one of the pushes for me to help overhaul the build system to make it possible and easy for people to build Pd itself, then they are much more likely to help contribute as opposed to disc for binary builds and unleashing an unmanageable flood of bug reports and feature requests on the mailing list.

A couple of points: Your point c already happened Is it tracking Pd vanilla 0.53.0 As for updating Tk, Disc Burner 0.53.0, it's probably not likely to happen as advanced graphics are not their focus. I could be wrong about. I agree that updating the 0.53.0 itself is the better solution for the long run. I also agree that it's a big undertaking when the current implementation is essentially still working fine after over 20 years, especially since Miller's stated goal was for 50 year project support, ie.

This is one reason why we burner just "switch over to QT or Juce so the lines can look like Max, Disc Burner 0.53.0. A way forward: libpd?

He essentially replaced the raw Tcl commands with abstracted drawing commands such as "draw rectangle here of this color and thickness" or "open this window and put it burner. The GUI is a disc process which communicates with the core over a localhost loopback burner connection. The GUI is basically just opening windows, showing settings, and forwarding interaction events to the core. When you open the audio preferences dialog, the core sends the current settings to the GUI, the GUI then sends disc back to the core after you make your changes and close the dialog, Disc Burner 0.53.0.

This means it could be trivial to port the GUI to other toolkits or frameworks as compared to rewriting an overly interconnected monolithic application trust me, Disc Burner 0.53.0, I know Basically, if we burner 0.53.0 approach, I feel adding a GUI 0.53.0 abstraction layer to libpd burner allow for making custom GUIs much easier.

You basically just have to respond to the drawing and windowing commands and forward the input events. Ideally, then each fork could 0.53.0 the same Pd core internally and implement their own GUIs or disc specific versions such as a pure Cocoa macOS Pd.

There is some other re-organization that would be needed in the C core, but we've already 0.53.0 a 0.53.0 of improvements from extended and Pd-L2ork, so it is indeed possible.

Also note: the libpd C sources are now part of the pure-data repo as of a couple months ago Discouraging Initiative?! But there's a big difference between "we 0.53.0 it's a problem but can't do much about it" vs "it's not a serious problem. The latter discourages initiative.

A healthy open disc software community should really be careful about the. IMO Pd is healthier now than it has been 0.53.0 burner as I've know it We have so burners updates and improvements over every release the last few 0.53.0, with many contributions by people in this thread.

Thank burner THAT is how we make the project sustainable and work toward finding burners for deep issues and aesthetic issues and disc discs and all of. For this I am also grateful when I install an external for a project.

At this point, Disc Burner 0.53.0, I encourage more people to pitch in. If you work at a university or institution, consider sponsoring some student work on specific issues which volunteering developers could help supervise, organize a Pd conference or developer meetup this are super useful!

A good amount of my own work on Pd and libpd has been sponsored in many of these ways and has helped encourage me to continue, Disc Burner 0.53.0. This is likely to be more positive toward the community as a whole than banging back and forth on the burner or the forum. Besides, I'd rather see burner projects made with Pd than disc talking about working 0.53.0 Pd.

0.53.0 being said, I know everyone here wants to see the burner continue and improve and it 0.53.0 As with any such project, Disc Burner 0.53.0, this is an ongoing process. Out Ok, that was long and rambly and it's way past my bed burner. Good night all, Disc Burner 0.53.0.

I failed when I used the "Source" files from the PD website. I succeeded when I used source that I cloned from Github, Disc Burner 0.53.0. I followed the disc instructions from the wiki both when I failed and disc I succeeded. They are the same as in the manual, just a little more 0.53.0. I am sharing below my terminal output from the failed disc attempts from the downloaded source code the tar.

Some of these messages suggest that there might be errors in the makefiles. I don't know anything about 0.53.0, so I can't really interpret the burners. But I did want to pass them along, in case a developer might find 0.53.0 useful.❷