On Friday, July 13, 2012 at 2:43 PM, Kassen wrote:
On 13 July 2012 20:17, George Locke <george.locke.maxmsp@gmail.com> wrote:sweet. guess i might've figured that one out on my own...I understand the problem.Like this I have been using it for quite a while, but the need for theextra Step, unless it sets some sort of variable scaling, feels a bitcounter-intuitive. I seem to remember it was Perry who first proposedthat Envelope without any input should assume a input of 1. That wouldbring it more closely in line with similar objects in other systems.There is also no problem with asking questions if you looked around abit; the documentation is a bit scattered.Happy ChucKing,Kas._______________________________________________chuck-users mailing list