Firing order of sequential subcontrols

Question

MIDI Target Manufacturer(s): Other/Unlisted Maker

My DMX lighting box uses MIDI channels to address DMX values over 127. So MIDI channel 1 addresses DMX channels 1-128, MIDI channel 2 addresses DMX channels 129-256 and so on up to 512.

I've set up a Picker Supercontrol with 512 ticks with "Options as Super" on "Sequential" (accounting for sequential subcontrol overlap) and four subcontrols on successive MIDI channels with MIDI ranges of 0-127. Since I want only to select a single DMX channel at a time, the Supercontrol is "Send on release."

The issue arises on the transition between one subcontrol and the next. For instance, if the picker is at 56 and I select 130, MD first sends MIDI channel 1 at 127 (the first subcontrol max) then MIDI channel 2 at 1 (the second subcontrol). This isn't a huge problem since that last event is the one I want. But going backward is another matter. Picking 56 again on the supercontrol first sends MIDI channel 1 at 56 (the first subcontrol and the value I want) but then MIDI channel 2 at 0 (the second subcontrol minimum) and since it's the second subcontrol it fires last, sending the wrong value.

I hope I've explained the situation. The question is, is there a way to fire ONLY the ultimate value in sequential array of subcontrols and not the min/max values of the subcontrols as they are passed by?

Answer 1

Re-architect to avoid the problem

In most situations with sequential, the assumption is that one control is at max before the next is activated, or is at zero before the prior one is moved.  Is why the max or min values get transmitted as passed and the next control is activated.

Why not re-architect as follows:

You keep your picker as the supercontrol, send on release only.

Two sub controls.

First is 512 named ticks, 128 0s, 128 1s, 128 2s, 128 3s, type channel changer -> second control.

Second is 512 named ticks, 0-127 repeated 4 times.

In my test, this only sends the desired final value.

Comments

Thanks so much jkhiser. Such a simple alternative. I was trying too hard.

Answer 2

Re-architect to avoid the problem

In most situations with sequential, the assumption is that one control is at max before the next is activated, or is at zero before the prior one is moved.  Is why the max or min values get transmitted as passed and the next control is activated.

Why not re-architect as follows:

You keep your picker as the supercontrol, send on release only.

Two sub controls.

First is 512 named ticks, 128 0s, 128 1s, 128 2s, 128 3s, type channel changer -> second control.

Second is 512 named ticks, 0-127 repeated 4 times.

In my test, this only sends the desired final value.