Update node does not update to record changes

this is partially user confusion and maybe a bug.

when connecting an LFO to the record pad, it might be automatically assigend to the Update operation, if there is one. in my case there wasn’t any, i had to manually add it.

in the main patch the update node then gets an output when created. since i wasn’t sure i did everything right, i disconnected the LFO to test if that changes something to the update node in the mainpatch, but it didn’t. but a newly created update node has no output. so i ended up with two different looking update nodes, based on the same record.

seems like the update node does not get all the changes made in the record.


and any idea why my collegue already had the update operation (following the same course instructions) and i had to create it.

Its a record. Try it with a class

my post was about a possible bug report. the update node in the mainpatch still shows an output, even when there is nothing assigned to the update operation, see gif.

Ah I see, although if you Rightclick-configure the node will have the option to “show output.” The node record isn’t broken as such, it just assumed that you wanted to output the type when the update was connected to a pad and assumed you didn’t when it wasn’t.

ah, sorry - I misunderstood it, there defensively something wrong ))

think i just ran into this with classes. had a class with two inputs set to create, then deleted one of them. the create node in the main patch now complains about that missing input.
when creating that create node again from node browser its ok.

this is actually a feature: if you press [Space] to learn more (as the tooltip suggests), this warning will be explained in detail. basically it is a hint that this pin was there previously and you had a value set on it. to not simply discard that value accidentally, VL gives you one last chance here to make sure this change was intentional.

i see. clearly should have read the warning. nevermind

unfortunately this is not a bug but by (bad) design. the thinking here was that there are cases (simple get/split) operations, in which case we don’t want the output. so at the moment there is some magic in place to detect what kind of operation you are working on and then either show the output by default or only have it available optional (via rightclick->configure).

we certainly have to rework this and make it more consistent.

This topic was automatically closed 365 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.