Spencer Russell <Spencer.Russell@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Tue, Mar 01, 2005 at 09:04:02AM -0500, Joe Hartley wrote:
>> On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 11:02:31 +0100
>> Mario Lang <mlang@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >
>> > Yes, it is, and I consider this behaviour the only sensible.
>> > For me, the other dials (those that wrap) are broken, and
>> > they are a serious accessibility hassle.
>>
>> I'm with Mario on this. The last thing I'd want to have happen is to
>> have a parameter wrap from full off to full on because the controller
>> sent out a value of 3..2..1..0..127.
>>
> I think I would prefer the dial to send relative information as
> to what direction it's turning, so that you can have more than
> 127 different values controlled by one knob. It's not exceedingly
> difficult to take a wrapping controller and make it functionally
> the same, but if the encoder just stops at 0 and 127, it makes
> that impossible.
Er, no, thats actually very easy, just reset its value to 1 whenever it hits
0. You can write to any controller of the BC{R,F}2000 to set its current
value.
--
CYa,
Mario
