Thanks in advance,
Frank

I did something similar to that. But I think I had occasional issues with out of sync data coming through. That could have been operator error. I'll experiment further with it.

If I were to take the dynamic patching route, could you recommend a good resource on the subject?

Thanks,
Frank

Edit: Just remembered, we now have actual documentation for dynamic patching as of pd 0.52, open the helpfile for message boxes and then click on the [pd-messages] subpatch bottom left.

Note that you can send multiple messages comma separated from within one message as @oid has done in the [connect( message.

If the sub-patch is even only a little more complex it can be easier to dynamically create a whole abstraction that contains send and receive type objects, as a large quantity of [connect( or [disconnect( messages can spin your head off your neck.
The message would be [obj 10 10 my-abstraction $2 12 woof( for example, to put [my-abstraction $0-value 12 woof] into the sub-patch and preserve the sub-patch value of $0 within the abstraction as $1.
Yes, cascading $ values can be great fun in dynamic patching.... but nothing like as complex as [connect( messages... that will have to be adjusted if you add another object to the sub-patch in @oid's example.
Dynamically creating a large number of abstractions with different arguments is a very powerful tool.
The [clone] object is more restrictive as concerns arguments, and I find it a bit harder to use.

Also you can send messages directly to the sub-patch with a single message box like this..... ctlin_2.pd
By adding extra arguments to the [pack] and replacing e.g. "10 10" with "10 $4" within the message you can then easily use a counter...... 1-n .... to both increment arguments (like with [clone] $1)..... and to place the objects neatly into the sub-patch.
David.

If the sub-patch is even only a little more complex it can be easier to dynamically create a whole abstraction that contains send and receive type objects, as a large quantity of [connect( or [disconnect( messages can spin your head off your neck.

That is why you just patch it manually, save it and let pd figure out the connect messages for you. Or you use this bit of cleverness.
https://forum.pdpatchrepo.info/topic/12690/a-patch-to-transforme-patchs-into-a-set-of-building-instruction-video-explanation
I like doing the connect messages and find them easier than the objects, which is why the objects are in their own messages and the connects all stuck in one, I always screw up the objects and pd's wonky text selecting causes me to screw them up even worse, separate messages helps to limit the damage.

"If the sub-patch is even only a little more complex it can be easier to dynamically create a whole abstraction that contains send and receive type objects, as a large quantity of [connect( or [disconnect( messages can spin your head off your neck."

Yes ..... I didn't mean "dynamically create an abstraction".
It would have been clearer if I had written "dynamically put an abstraction".

That is an interesting patch from @il-pleut .
@liamG did a lot of work automating connections years ago.
I cannot find his thread for that...... but what you linked to is at another level.

Some fun..... dynamic_sends.pd
David.

Yes ..... I didn't mean "dynamically create an abstraction".
It would have been clearer if I had written "dynamically put an abstraction".

You were clear in what you said, I was just posting when I should have been sleeping so I missed the point and finished it all by rambling about completely irrelevant things.