RIP Flowstone??

[abstractum]

Is Flowstone dead? Is it still being developed? Is it worth spending 100$ on it? How stable are the exported vst's? When will the 64Bit version be released? Are there alternatives to this program (Graphic Audio programming with vst export)?

I really like FlowStone but it seems dead?!

[Spogg]

Is Flowstone dead? Is it still being developed? Is it worth spending 100$ on it? How stable are the exported vst's? When will the 64Bit version be released? Are there alternatives to this program (Graphic Audio programming with vst export)?

I really like FlowStone but it seems dead?!

FlowStone is very much alive! The 64 bit version is still being developed but is working nicely and has loads of new and updated features.

I’ve used FS for about 7 years now and I’m still amazed by how well it works and what you can do with it. For such sophisticated and versatile software I think it’s a bargain price, plus if you buy the full version you have the chance to use and test the alpha versions as they are released. In fact I think the “alpha” is currently like a late stage beta, but those terms are debatable.

Unfortunately we don’t yet have a date for an official release, but some developers are now using the “alpha” for the whole development cycle. In my case I’m currently developing in 3.06 and using the alpha for 64 bit exports, but I also sometimes help users who are exclusively using the 64 bit version so I’m confident that the new version is really good.

Regarding stability of exports I’ve had minimal issues. Usually any problem will show up whilst developing the schematic so can be fixed before exporting.

I believe the only similar alternative is SynthEdit, but when I was trying to decide I tested both and preferred FlowStone by a big margin.

[kortezzzz]

Why wouldn't you try some exported vst's by your self? Download one of the latest FS developed free plugins and try it.
Here, on my site, you'll find some freebies or demos to test

https://www.fananteampro.com/

About alternatives: There are not much and surely not better that FS for non- native coders. As spogg said, there is synthedit, but it's development is slow and so far very buggy and yet not reliable for PRO usage or sales.

[abstractum]

Thanks ya'll!

Have you heard of Max8 with gen~? You can export plugins via JUCE... didn't get it to work yet tho. Really thinking about buying FlowStone.

[JWP]

I've been using SE on and off for about 15 years. I considered FS when first starting out, but it was too unintuitive for me, still kinda is.

The main differences in my opinion between the two is that FS is a strange(to me) marriage between software and hardware concepts and SE is more hardware concepts; Ex. FS 0-1 SE 0-10.

When I first really sat down with FS, it was a major hassle to rethink much of the DSP algorithms and how they flow chart in FS, Specifically the ADSR.

My main intention was to port an algorithm from SE, unfortunately, I fluked out the original math formulas and wasn't able to figure them out in FS. Then I considered, even if I finished, I will be building out of an alpha that I don't really have a license for. I asked if I can just buy the current license and export and sell with that license and was told yes, but that's kinda flimsy to stand on.

As spogg said, there is synthedit, but it's development is slow and so far very buggy and yet not reliable for PRO usage or sales.

I won't knock that statement, however, there are professional offerings on the market from some of the latest versions:
https://www.beatassist.eu/
I'm sure there are others.

I can't attest to the stability as I haven't tried them out. I will say that it's takes some pretty severe dedication to get something sophisticated stable in SE.

I'm currently fighting with unstable Butterworth EQs and a EQ display that freeze it's display after awhile.

I suggest that if your going to buy FS, wait for and official release and tinker with the alpha whilst you wait. Unless you got extra money you want to throw at the devs. With FS marketing style, the new license for FS (3?) will likely have to be purchased again.

[Spogg]

@JWP
I think familiarity breeds loyalty so going from one app to another can be steep and thus discouraging. I recently started to get to grips with Cakewalk by Bandlab for test reasons and also the trial version of FL Studio. I felt a lot of angst, being used to Reaper, even though they are all DAWs, so changing from SE to FS after some considerable time using SE must be tricky at least.

@abstractum
I won’t turn this into an FS Vs. SE thread but if one app appeals more than another, for whatever reason, then that seems the best way to go.

There may be an advantage with SE if you like to code in C++ because SE comes with an SDK so you can make your own “prims”. FS has Assembler and Ruby as well as DSP coding, but not C++, but you can include your own dlls written in whatever way you like.

[teknojunque]

Then I considered, even if I finished, I will be building out of an alpha that I don't really have a license for. I asked if I can just buy the current license and export and sell with that license and was told yes, but that's kinda flimsy to stand on.

One thing that is worth pointing out is that there is more than one license involved here. Having a license to FlowStone gives you permission to use FlowStone but not to distribute VSTs. So the first question relates to the issue of not owning a copy of FlowStone and whether buying a license grants you a license to use the alpha, and to that, DSP Robotics can give you an answer.

As a separate issue though is whether or not you can distribute the VSTs in question. If you don't have an existing license with Steinberg that goes back to before 2018 or so then you can't distribute the VST2 plugins that the current distribution version of FlowStone creates. This has nothing to do with 32 bit vs 64 bit, but is because Steinberg no longer grants new licenses to distribute VST2 plugins.

As I understand it, the alpha creates VST3 plugins and one still needs to sign a license agreement with Steinberg to distribute VST3 plugins.

So, if you buy a copy of FlowStone today, and you don't have a license from Steinberg that goes back to when they were granting licenses for VST2, then the only thing that you can legally distribute (without the alpha) is the generated EXE files.

I suspect that, for some years now, some small vendors distributed without signing the Steinberg license agreement. Recently though Steinberg has been pushing to get VST2 to go away and have become more aggressive.

[JWP]

One thing that is worth pointing out is that there is more than one license involved here. Having a license to FlowStone gives you permission to use FlowStone but not to distribute VSTs.

Correct, additionally, Steinberg's license is free, however, requires a signature from the developer then sits on a Steinberg clerk's desk until they get around to signing it and sending it back.

To be perfectly literal and legal, anyone can use the Flowstone (FS) demo, however to publish creations made with FS one needs a license. Until a license is acquired, all the projects and publishing made on a cracked version of FS legally belong to DSP Robotics. Having a FS 2 license and developing with the alpha is a grey area, but logically it's FS3 alpha, therefore all developments are intellectual property of DSP Robotics.
In a court battle it would be who has the better lawyer who wins.

So the first question relates to the issue of not owning a copy of FlowStone and whether buying a license grants you a license to use the alpha, and to that, DSP Robotics can give you an answer.

Sounds flimsy.

Flimsy.gif (584.25 KiB) Viewed 26285 times

As a separate issue though is whether or not you can distribute the VSTs in question. If you don't have an existing license with Steinberg that goes back to before 2018 or so then you can't distribute the VST2 plugins that the current distribution version of FlowStone creates. This has nothing to do with 32 bit vs 64 bit, but is because Steinberg no longer grants new licenses to distribute VST2 plugins.

True, however, Steinberg is unlikely to keep up with enforcing the ruling against every developer. If they become aware that someone is publishing a VST without a license, they can issue a cease and desist for those developers who fall in the groups of countries that participate in international copyright law.

I was vigilant enough to get a VST2 license right before that ruling went into effect. Took about 3 months but didn't delay the publishing of my first public VST2.

As I understand it, the alpha creates VST3 plugins and one still needs to sign a license agreement with Steinberg to distribute VST3 plugins.

Yup, and the current FS alpha also exports VST2 64bit. Oddly enough, it's also possible to export a VST3 32 bit.

So, if you buy a copy of FlowStone today, and you don't have a license from Steinberg that goes back to when they were granting licenses for VST2, then the only thing that you can legally distribute (without the alpha) is the generated EXE files.

Yaa.

I suspect that, for some years now, some small vendors distributed without signing the Steinberg license agreement. Recently though Steinberg has been pushing to get VST2 to go away and have become more aggressive.

If I remember the details correctly, Steinberg hit github developers with this ruling, resulting in a large take down of published VST2s.

[Tepeix]

Hi,

After a long time i come back to my old Synthmaker version.
I plan to buy Flowstone for 64bit vst capabilities.

If i understand well the next version will permit to make vst in 32 and 64 bit ?
The current alpha could do it but do not permit to distribute it ?

But we also need to have a Steinberg license because it will be vst2 or vst3 ?
Is it not possible to make vst1 in 64 bit with the next Flowstone version ?
Was it vst2 already with my old version of Synthmaker 2.0.5 or vst1 ?

Could i give vst2 or vst3 for free and ask for donation or it is like distributing ?

Well my dream seams to fall, because i was planning to make in a first time free vst then try to sell others after time and experience.
Could it be possible that Steinberg refuse the license or is it only a question of time ?
Thanks for any response !)

[Tepeix]

Hi,

Well sorry for those little stupid questions. That was really a shock for me and hard to understand.
I have decided to finish fast some vst and publish them. Then discover that 64bit is not possible.

But the really worst is i could not publish until Flowstone become capable of vst3 producing.
I wanted to be sure of this.
It really break my dream, i was so passionate, but i could not invest so much time if no gain is possible, even if i want it badly.

Is there no way to transform a vst2 in 3 outside of Flowstone ?

Also, as DSP robotics have ask the license to make a program capable of creating vst2, why people buying it must also have a license ? (could i not say made with Flowstone ?)

That's not really clear, is it the vst itself or the source code to make vst ?
Using Synthmaker and soon Flowstone i never touch a line of the vst source..

But well, seeing the most recent vst i suppose this is false hope ??

I really dislike so much this Steinberg decision that make so much injustice. And do not favor Flowstone.

Using LMMS, i mostly avoid vst3 that are not supported.
(I could use them with Element from Kushview, but automation are not possible)

So, how many time must i wait before Flowstone could make vst3 ?
Please give me an estimation !)

(If i only asked the license before !!(