DSP Robotics Support

Well yes at least they haven't put it under the no category.

I want 64bit to make my plugins sound twice as good but seriously I have plans to release a synth and I would like to be able to release it as 64bit because this is what many people expect if they are running a 64bit host.

I agree FS shines as a prototyping and educational tool and 64bit is of no benefit there. So I guess the motivation is not all that great seen as this is the area FS is trying to cement a strong position in.

I can live without 64bit but it would nice and I think would be a real benefit to DSPR in extra sales.


My current plans with FS is to create a fully working prototype of my synth and release it to the public, if it is popular I will be porting it to c++. With this in mind I am going to make the porting as easy as possible, everything will be written in ASM and Ruby and the dll component. I could have gone the c++ route first but I am more comfortable in FS and it is faster for prototyping, still working out ideas, and it is possible I won't even bother going to c++ if there is no interest so I'm not going to waste my time with that just yet.

Exo wrote:I can live without 64bit but it would nice and I think would be a real benefit to DSPR in extra sales.

Totally agree most people can live without 64bit, unless you want to sell your plugs then its vital, people have whined and complained about mine not being 64bit ( or AU )and their free.

Xtinct wrote:people have whined and complained about mine not being 64bit ( or AU )and their free.

At which point, we must ask ourselves; "How important to me is those people's approval?".

Just to be clear - this isn't aimed at you personally, Xtinct - just a general observation about the 64bit moans. The quote just leads nicely to the point.

If, like Exo, the ambition is to make some kind of career or income out of it, then his approach is a perfect example to show the way. Likewise if we desperately need the other musicians that we work with to be able to use our plugins.
As he says, the Ruby primitive, assembly and DLL primitive are perfect stepping stones - you don't have to go all the way writing the whole plugin in C++ right away, but can bite off a chunk at a time and step-by-step absorb the skills to mature as a developer.
Even if that level of skill seems unattainable, all is not lost - there are plenty of skilled programmers out there who do not understand DSP or VST, or who are looking for an interesting project to inspire them - being a "one-man-band" is not the only option.

We might say that FS has proved its value already - by getting you far enough into programming that it's limitations frustrate. (it makes me bang my head on the keyboard sometimes!)

If satisfying the demands from users/customers is important enough, then a commitment has to be made - or decide to stay in the sand-box forever. Staying in the sand-box is not necessarily negative - we might consider that "enjoying" making plugins is more important to us than commercial success - that is perfectly valid, and closest to my position.

It may sound harsh, but IMHO, anyone content to sit on their hands and wait around for Malc to provide just the right tools, so that they can attain "success", simply does not desire that "success" badly enough!

trogluddite wrote:It may sound harsh, but IMHO, anyone content to sit on their hands and wait around for Malc to provide just the right tools, so that they can attain "success", simply does not desire that "success" badly enough!

Well said but what about those poor people that just want to repackage the stock components like the compressor and reverb and sell them at $30 a time to do. Guess that's the end of their business model

NPCAOMM
(Nearly Spat Coffee All Over My Monitor!)

Spanner in the works! I have just found out that the biggest problem with a x64 port is the lack of support for inline assembler in visual studio for x64.

This would require a complete rewrite of the audio engine to use only c/c++, so say good by to the DSP and ASM component!

This has me rethinking my approach, I was going to write any audio code in assembler and then just copy and paste it inline into functions. But this will mean no x64 support, at least if using visual studio need to look into if this is the case for all compilers!

Edit... but on the plus side DSPR could potentially add a c++ component, they would have to replace the DSP/ASM component with something

...or widen the FS into non-audio domains a little bit more, by adding easy to use new components.

If I'd like to print (yep, using traditional printer) a nicely formated PDF document out of FS made app - I'm without tools. And it's just an example of missing things, to make FS more universal.

Xtinct wrote:

trogluddite wrote:It may sound harsh, but IMHO, anyone content to sit on their hands and wait around for Malc to provide just the right tools, so that they can attain "success", simply does not desire that "success" badly enough!

Well said but what about those poor people that just want to repackage the stock components like the compressor and reverb and sell them at $30 a time to do. Guess that's the end of their business model

No one here is selling stock components/modules... I know it happens, but we know.. XTC... etc etc

Trog wrote:

Even if that level of skill seems unattainable, all is not lost - there are plenty of skilled programmers out there who do not understand DSP or VST, or who are looking for an interesting project to inspire them - being a "one-man-band" is not the only option.

And on the other hand...

Trog wrote:

t may sound harsh, but IMHO, anyone content to sit on their hands and wait around for Malc to provide just the right tools, so that they can attain "success", simply does not desire that "success" badly enough!

What I see here is an oxymoron, Trog. And I will use myself as an example to clarify:
There is a wide range of creators and developers in the vst market today, and no doubt that platforms like FS and SE has a hand in it. some's strength points are identifying potential and market's needs. some know how to design great UI's and make people want their products, whatever they are. some have amazing developing and coding skills and some (very few and lucky) have both vision and technical skills.

I see my self at the first category. I have ideas, I locate market's needs and in these days, thanks to FS\SE, i can even bring them to life elegantly using my designing skills. But... my ability to learn coding is a total crap.
So someone like me has no other chance but "sit on my hands and wait around for Malc to provide just the right tools" for me. Is that means that I'm "not desire that "success" badly enough"? I don't think so!

People should understand that FS\SE gives you the chance to make 30 men team's job by yourself! (amazing platforms!!!) ;
audio, coding, UI planning, graphics, marketing hypes. AMAZING!!! but it doesn't means that a single person should or REALY CAN do all this work alone. I'm not a shame to Admit: Yes, i need people like malc and like you, Trog, or my total project, my "big picture", not worth a penny, because I SIMPLY CAN'T AND NEVER BE ABLE TO CODE.
but, still believe i can find my place in this market as a Profitable entrepreneur, AND WITH THE HELP OF THE RIGHT PLATFORM AND THE RIGHT CODER.

Taking into account the recent comments here, I think we should try to avoid falling in to Ridicule and arrogance's trap and behave indulgently to our (and other's) weaknesses.

My wish is only to make my already released plugins 64x.

That's all, im learning other languages rigth now.
But i don't want to be the next lennar digital, and my DSP skills are limited to such thing.. But who know, maybe a find a good engeneer.

I delayed my effects bundle creation since i will do it (if success) with WD-OL or Juce, depeding who seems better for me. (prototyped in FS of course)

I don't think it's impossible to c++ code for me. The code probably is the last thing, the dsp related math maybe are 1000 times worse than c++.