Matrix Modulators not driven by the controls in exported plugin

[ustk]

@Orvillain Interesting, effectively it's still working in Hise without the processorId connected to the MM if you just set the matrixTargetId, but unfortunately it's still doesn't work in exported plugins...

I wonder what could be different, so I will try with a minimal project...

It might be a recent bug, what is your commit?
Mine is 9 days old because there was bugs but I see it now should compile on macos so I'll give a try tomorrow.

@Oli-Ullmann said in Matrix Modulators not driven by the controls in exported plugin:

My solution was to comment out the relevant matrix IDs in the Matrix Modulation Properties.

Do you mean comment, compile, uncomment and compile again?
And do you refer to a problem you had in Hise too or in exported plugin?

Then it is mono modulation and not sample accurate...

Is it not the opposite? losing accuracy when you actually modulate a parameter connected via processorId instead of using the matrix mod system?

[Orvillain]

@Oli-Ullmann said in Matrix Modulators not driven by the controls in exported plugin:

@Orvillain
Then it is mono modulation and not sample accurate...

I don't think that is true.

[Orvillain]

@ustk said in Matrix Modulators not driven by the controls in exported plugin:

It might be a recent bug, what is your commit?

Oh god, I'm way back in December right now!

[Christoph Hart]

@ustk I think the issue is that you're using the matrix modulator system in an FX context which basically forces monophonic envelope behaviour and I haven't tested this too much. Can you make a simple test project that demonstrates the issue?

[ustk]

@Christoph-Hart Alright I am putting together a minimal project.

Question, should I connect processorId and parameterId or just use the matrixTargetId only?

Because when removing the processorId connection in my project the controls are still working, while in the minimal project it's not working without it...

[ustk]

@Christoph-Hart Here ya go

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1enxIfvhJNkcVnfP9BE4e83M3UdBud4MX/view?usp=sharing

[Orvillain]

@ustk

I'm fairly confident you don't need to use processorId and parameterId at all - just the matrixTargetId. It has to match the id that your particular matrix modulator has.

[ustk]

@Orvillain I'd like it to be the case and I tried with success in my project yesterday...
But in the minimal example I posted I can't seem to make it work without it. Perhaps I've made a silly mistake, could you check it out?

EDIT: after reopening the project, it works without the processorId... go figure...

[Oli Ullmann]

@ustk
@Orvillain
I noticed that Christoph has joined the conversation, so I'll hold back now to avoid causing any confusion. :-)

[ustk]

@Orvillain said in Matrix Modulators not driven by the controls in exported plugin:

That's what I've been doing, and my modulation all works fine in an exported plugin.

But do you use extra_mod nodes along with the parameters ExternalModulation set to Combined or just normal parameter connection in the networks?

Because this would confirm what @Goodflow and I are witnessing...

Gosh I hope this will be resolved soon enough, I have the release date approaching fast...

[Orvillain]

@ustk said in Matrix Modulators not driven by the controls in exported plugin:

But do you use extra_mod nodes along with the parameters ExternalModulation set to Combined or just normal parameter connection in the networks?

No I am not using extra_mod. I'm using custom C++ nodes, with normal parameter connections. I do used the 'Combined' ExternalModulation setting with my parameters though.

[ustk]

@Orvillain So that one more confirmation toward the extra_mod connection not being effective... @Christoph-Hart?