[chuck-users] chuck, PD and OSC

[dan trueman]

yeah, you can do OSC bundles in ChucK, though it is undocumented.  
definitely helps when sending lots of data that should be together.

dt

On Dec 6, 2007, at 11:20 AM, Stephen Sinclair wrote:

>>> good to know. probably then some combination of udp for well timed
>>> messages (except for multicasting, which also stinks for timing) and
>>> tcp for single messages that *have* to get to their destination is
>>> the way to go.
>>
>> The other alternative is time-stamping of some sort of sync signal,
>> but that makes some kinds of r/t interactivity more difficult.
>
>
> I believe the TCP-for-commands, UDP-for-parameters approach is a
> pretty good one.
>
> In my experience UDP packets aren't really dropped all that often, but
> I often wondered if TCP might be a better approach in general.
>
> Some day I'd like to see a standardized shared-memory approach to
> passing OSC messages, which would be insanely fast on a local machine.
>  (Though, I believe that local loopback sockets are often implemented
> using shared memory, and are thus pretty much just as fast.  Not sure
> if this is the case in Linux, I've been meaning to look it up for a
> while..)
>
> Keep in mind that if you have several OSC messages that must arrive
> simultaneously, you can us bundles, which should be supported in most
> implementations.
>
> I believe you can use them in PureData by sending "[" and "]" messages
> to the dumpOSC object.
> Not sure if Chuck supports them?  In any case they are an under-used
> part of the OSC standard.
>
> Steve
> _______________________________________________
> chuck-users mailing list
> chuck-users at lists.cs.princeton.edu
> https://lists.cs.princeton.edu/mailman/listinfo/chuck-users