Flowstone 3.0.3 Released

[tester]

Why to bother with ruby so much, if this tool seems to be rather slow for most performance related things? I would rather seek for some else libraries/codes to include.

[Tronic]

@tester
Because it is the only system, years later, to communicate with external libraries,
and realize now that things are not developed or will not be,
because being a buyer I have all the right to express my opinion.

If Malc says do not worry about ruby, i will offer a way to run external libraries,
then for me the ruby no longer has any interest.

I honestly do not understand your position, for now we are able to realize only $5 EQ.

Then what you have written on SM forum, I do not like it, do not buy it,
it is a way to say you spent the money and now you take away the reason why I spent?

tester, i respect you, but I do not like lawyers.

[Jay]

congrats on the new update Malc!

I like the scrolling feature! just what the doctor ordered!

i also like the paste from clipboard on the bitmap component! you should add it to the text prim as well

been trying the new hid module with a ps3 controller but not getting it to output data although it say it is connected in the hid example schem, it works on my pc and i am using it wired/usb cable, so i will probably be asking for help on this later

nice update! cheers!

[tester]

@tester
Because it is the only system, years later, to communicate with external libraries,
and realize now that things are not developed or will not be,
because being a buyer I have all the right to express my opinion.

If Malc says do not worry about ruby, i will offer a way to run external libraries,
then for me the ruby no longer has any interest.

I honestly do not understand your position, for now we are able to realize only $5 EQ.

Then what you have written on SM forum, I do not like it, do not buy it,
it is a way to say you spent the money and now you take away the reason why I spent?

tester, i respect you, but I do not like lawyers.

I'm just tired of listening complaints and mostly complaints, while only a fraction of FS (creative) possibilities is being really used right now in practice. If there is a development schedule for 3-5 years to make some major jump (x64, db precision, osx), then this is time it will take, no matter how many people will express their negative opinion at each minor update. Nobody directly said, that this year there will be x64 version; as far I remember it was said that options on what and when are being considered. I also pointed, that the influence on development directions is driven by those, who "bring back" profit to a company that creates such environment (alternative: make something that will inspire devs as people, to help you?). That why I was so ironic, emhasizing these "yet another" tiny things (that do not conquer the world in terms of popularity). I bet that you get better feedback on some of your needs, trying to communicate directly with devs and shortening some of your thoughts to necessary minimum. Overdriving it in public forum - leaves only a headache. What are the reactions of your customers to your products, and as a developer - how you feel with it?

As for ruby, I'm not a fan of it, but also not negatively pointed towaards it. I just recal simple oscillator comparisons: ~0.2% with classic SM guts (stock osc, dsp code, asm code), and the same one made with ruby - over 20% of my CPU... Ruby as it is - seems to work fine only for certain things, and I guess this is why it is being treated that way. I mean - ruby is not a "holy grail" of programming.

If I crossed borderlines of a good taste for some folks, then my apologies. But please - try to get the whole/greater picture as it is, and in context as it is and was.

[Tronic]

he he tester,
In fact, I proposed a solution, I have not spoken only.

then also prefer direct feedback from other users, when discussing a component that changes the games so massive.
and give others the opportunity to understand and choose what is best for them.

communicate privately with developers, I do not like if I do not have problems.
better that they remain focused on the development.

although from what I understand, I am part of a minority,
my proposal solves a problem, both VST and EXE.
if its not the right choice for Malc,
to me it would be enough to have just the files, exe.dll and vst.dll, with the new update,
but with the old systems for ruby.

so, Malc, think over, and give us a public feedback on this.
from now on I will not say anything more about it.

[RunBeerRun2]

This seems weird-now the "trial" version will only work for 7 days, what if I don't want to buy it any time soon, I can never test it again?

The old free version at least opened.

[digitalwhitebyte]

Tronic great, I understand how you did it, and it all works perfectly.

I hope that Malc considers this path because it seems to optimal and solves the problem in an elegant way.
the system now adopted, puts the ruby back
it also solves the problems of sharing the interpreter in the EXE.

a man more, of the minority.

Malc try it.

[support]

billv - Have your tags been disappearing with 3.0.2 or was that 3.0.2? There has been the odd report of this happening but so far we haven't been able to reproduce it which makes fixing whatever is at fault almost impossible. If it happens again and you have some idea of what happened prior to the issue please do let us know. Any light you can shed on the possible cause will be a big help.

tronic - Thanks for your comments and for offering them in a positive way.

I think your proposal should work. It's not as tidy as having the dll statically linked - dlls need to be extracted at runtime etc. It would also mean supplying two extra dlls in the install too. However it does provide a way for you to use extensions which, as of 3.0.3 you don't currently have. It's something we could consider though I'd prefer to find a neater solution if we can.

I'm interested in one comment you made:

If Malc says do not worry about ruby, i will offer a way to run external libraries,
then for me the ruby no longer has any interest.

When you say 'external libraries' are you talking about your own dlls? It looks like you are as you then say that Ruby no longer has any interest.

What sort of things are you wanting to do via those dlls - are you just looking at processing audio data at sampling rate? Or are you wanting to process 'green' data as well?

RunBeerRun2 - you'll be able to test it again for another 7 days after each release.

Jay - strange, we've tried a PS3 here too and had no problems. That was wireless though. Glad you like the scrolling too!

Tester - really appreciate your passion for the software

[support]

tronic - forgot to say, the export to exe still uses the old method of wrapping the the dll and extracting. We wanted to change this for the VST primarily because it was much more of an issue there.

[Tronic]

I think your proposal should work. It's not as tidy as having the dll statically linked - dlls need to be extracted at runtime etc. It would also mean supplying two extra dlls in the install too. However it does provide a way for you to use extensions which, as of 3.0.3 you don't currently have. It's something we could consider though I'd prefer to find a neater solution if we can.

I understand your comments, and I also hope to find something to offer you the alternative.
for this update if i have the possibility to give a version with the old system, I'd be happy.

When you say 'external libraries' are you talking about your own dlls? It looks like you are as you then say that Ruby no longer has any interest.

yes, mine DLLs , and other library of ruby.
Sorry Malc,
I think I expressed myself badly,
"no more interest" means that there is no more interest in having the ruby interpreter not embedd.

What sort of things are you wanting to do via those dlls - are you just looking at processing audio data at sampling rate? Or are you wanting to process 'green' data as well?

I am using ruby to load both my external libraries for green operations and processes audio.

having given the ruby the possibility of having a memory pointer directly
when using external dll, via the Frame class.

I think that you could do with any dll, providing an API specific to communicate with the outside.
without going through the ruby?
So the ruby has a different function and no longer tied to being able to load external DLLs.

and in any case both the possibilities are enticing.

thank you.