Any plans to support VST hosting?

For general discussion related FlowStone
Post Reply
woodslanding
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2014 8:44 pm

Any plans to support VST hosting?

Post by woodslanding »

I sure like the way flowstone is organized, and I'd love to create a VST host with it. Any plans to support hosting? I like that it can create .exe's, and from what I've seen so far it seems easier to understand than max/msp and more powerful than usine.

Thanks!
-eric
Exo
Posts: 426
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 8:58 pm
Location: UK
Contact:

Re: Any plans to support VST hosting?

Post by Exo »

Welcome Eric,

I doubt this will ever happen, there is no technical reason why they haven't implemented it yet but they clearly have made a decision not to allow it.

AFAIA a very early beta had hosting VST plugins but they scrapped it.
Flowstone Guru. Blog and download site for Flowstone.
Best VST Plugins. Initial Audio.
KG_is_back
Posts: 1196
Joined: Tue Oct 22, 2013 5:43 pm
Location: Slovakia

Re: Any plans to support VST hosting?

Post by KG_is_back »

I've heard, it was pretty easy to load a VST plugin, make your own gui and resell it as a "new" product, so they removed the feature, because it was inevitable. It's cruel, it's a shame, but it is a very dangerous feature from a software as easy usable as Flowstone/Synthmaker.
woodslanding
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2014 8:44 pm

Re: Any plans to support VST hosting?

Post by woodslanding »

Well, one solution to that is to allow it to be either a host OR a vst, but not both.

But I suppose that might be difficult to implement.

Am I the only one out there that feels like there are 100 plugins for every purpose I could ever imagine, and no appropriate host?

If you want to record with vsts, there are a dozen (very similar) workstations, and then live and all its clones.

On the other hand, for actual live perfomance with vsts there are a number of poorly-designed, buggy, ultra-small-budget hosts.... which is why I've been rolling my own. Sure would love a better IDE for it though.
User avatar
Nubeat7
Posts: 1347
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2012 9:59 am
Location: Vienna
Contact:

Re: Any plans to support VST hosting?

Post by Nubeat7 »

sensomusic hollyhock is great when you want to build your own liveperformance setup, the bad thing is that it has a gui bug with FS / SM plugins, there is audiomulch if you like to patch your own setups, i normally use renoise for my livesets, also had an eye on bitwig but really have no time to dig into it..

to roll up your own c++ with juce for sure would be the best solution after it was originally developed for tracktion.. you also find a mini host as example in it when you download the framework, but developing an own DAW by yourself will be your livework :)
User avatar
CoreStylerz
Posts: 327
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2012 2:19 am
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: Any plans to support VST hosting?

Post by CoreStylerz »

So basically anyone can make a c++ host, change gui and resell.
It's not easier ok, but you can do it.
Need my support for app development, website or custom scripts?
PM me if you are interested.
Experienced Java, J2EE, PHP, Javascript, Angular, Cloud Solutions developer.
woodslanding
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2014 8:44 pm

Re: Any plans to support VST hosting?

Post by woodslanding »

Yeah, I looked into Juce (which both Hollyhock and Max/Msp are now using) but as you say--it would be my life's work. I'm not really up for digging into C++ right now. If there was juce for Java I'd give it a shot.

I'm not even sure Max could handle my needs, as you need to open a seperate window for each thread. And I suppose FS is not multithreaded either..... I just wish Hollyhock was as well designed as FS seems to be (based on reading the manual.)

cheers,
-e
Post Reply