View Single Post
Old 05-08-2014, 06:09 AM   #104
Banned
Human being with feelings
 
Banned's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Unwired (probably in the proximity of Amsterdam)
Posts: 4,868
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hopi View Post
Now so far, from other discussions lately, it also appears that to use it and get it to read the signal properly, it will have to live on another track as an aux and be sent the signal from whatever you want to read.... at least IF you want to see the output of that track meters show the same as the TCP or MCP meter.

Apparently no way around that bothersome fact at this time.
Well, there *is* a way around sending audio for all tracks to a single track: REAPER can also send out VU levels using OSC. I've just uploaded a script for OSCII-bot here the other day that displays VU levels from REAPER - using *completely* different graphics as suggested here, though.

If you guys wouldn't mind having a VU meter 'bridge' living in a window that does not belong to REAPER (and using the ballistics that REAPER uses), it is quite feasible to make it use bitmap graphics with moving needles instead (although EEL2 seems to restrict us to a maximum of 128 bitmap images; but I think these can be used as 'stacked' image strips, containing all images for an animation in a single image).

Also, this approach could very easily be adapted to just send all VU levels back to a specific JS plug-in as regular parameter values (in 32 bit fp resolution) or MIDI (e.g. using 14 bit CC# pairs). The entire bunch of VU level values would then arrive at the JS plug at a very small latency compared to direct internal audio routings (think a few ms; for visualization this seems small enough not to be an issue). But, perhaps most importantly, it would save your projects from getting messed up with additional audio routings for metering (thus also saving you from the chore of having to mess up your projects in order to work as intended).

Fwiw, I'd suggest looking into using something like Blender - the REAPER of 3D graphics! - for making pretty photo-realistic graphics. Without ray-tracing, it's much too hard to make realistic highlights and shadows (not even mentioning the effect of looking through a layer of glass!), *especially* on moving parts. The mockups above look quite pretty, and they'd probably do just fine if you'd only need static images. However, if you need an *animation* of a *3D* object, it's much harder not to make things look fake. And when you'd horizontally line up a bunch of elements using the exact same images - thus using the same highlights and shadows - things starts to become very unrealistic (read: fugly) really fast. In such a case, in my experience, the difference between the results of even the best 2D graphics applications and proper 3D rendered animations is like night and day (or, as we're on an audio forum: like a mono mix vs. a stereo mix). If you're doing this primarily for pretty looks, creating a 3D model of a meter with moving needle may well be worth the effort.
__________________
˙lɐd 'ʎɐʍ ƃuoɹʍ ǝɥʇ ǝɔıʌǝp ʇɐɥʇ ƃuıploɥ ǝɹ,noʎ

Last edited by Banned; 05-08-2014 at 06:23 AM.
Banned is offline   Reply With Quote