MOTM

My vote is for USB or Ethernet, preferably USB.  I use a laptop so don't 
have a direct serial port.  Midi is very standard but inherently limited 
and again I'd need an adaptor.  Although Midi might enable the CG to 
respond to other hardware, I think the main point here is to develop a 
computer to CG interface so why not use the standard computer 
jack/protocols.  Ethernet is cool (put your CG under internet control!), 
but I think USB makes more sense overall.

I'll volunteer to write an editor (especially if it means I get hardware 
early :) ).  I can do it in Java which should be able to handle any of 
the interface options and theoretically do it cross platform.  I use OSX 
so I will make sure it covers OSX as well.  I'm a programmer by trade 
but am more of the make-it-work type than the make-it-look-pretty type 
so would be open to a collaborator on the graphic end even if just for 
photoshop work.

Dave

Paul Schreiber wrote:
>> Paul, have you made any more decision regarding the digital interface 
>> to the cloud generator?  With all of these parameters being able to 
>> code a computer based editor would seem a big plus.  I know some 
>> people prefer to keep their computer and modular segregated but I'm 
>> always looking for more ways to use my computer with my modular.
> 
> Hmmm... I haven't really thought about it (having direct link from the 
> Expander to a computer). It could be:
> 
> a) serial port
> b) MIDI port
> c) USB
> d) Ethernet
> 
> The added hardware cost is $10-$15 (my cost) per module, so I guess the 
> question to ask is:
> 
> a) who wants to volunteer to write the editors
> b) is a burden cost of say $30/module worth it (everyone pays it)
> 
> This would push the planned cost of the Expander from $189 to say $219. 
> Big deal?
> 
> Paul S.
>