05-04-2017 11:13 AM
Ha Ha.
Well, the math itself wouldn't be a hack.
But the -1 and +1 to work back and forth to jockey around the 0 and 1 you get out of the boolean to comparison. It took me a couple minutes to figure how the math was manipulating the gain to get the result. It starts to feel a little Rube-ish.
I like to be able to look at the code and quickly see what it is doing.
05-12-2017 05:11 PM
@RavensFan wrote:
Ha Ha.
Well, the math itself wouldn't be a hack.
But the -1 and +1 to work back and forth to jockey around the 0 and 1 you get out of the boolean to comparison. It took me a couple minutes to figure how the math was manipulating the gain to get the result. It starts to feel a little Rube-ish.
I like to be able to look at the code and quickly see what it is doing.
Honestly the correct thing to do to make it easier to understand is to replace the increment and decriment functions with add and subtract using the integer array. But, since the int there is certain to be either 0 or 1....
You do the math....:D
05-13-2017 06:51 AM
05-13-2017 10:20 AM
What impact does the IR&C have compared to GT?
I agree that it will work but, did you benchmark the code and find an advantage?
05-13-2017 11:13 AM - edited 05-13-2017 11:18 AM
@JÞB wrote:
What impact does the IR&C have compared to GT?
I agree that it will work but, did you benchmark the code and find an advantage?
I take back my earlier agreement. Toss a NaN in there.
And how did you actually scale the inputs by a factor of x?
05-13-2017 11:45 AM