DSP Robotics Support

can not be compared synthedit and flowstone. Flowstone very advanced enviroment! Programs similar in functionality flowstone does not exist! LabView incorrect to compare with flowstone.The debate think meaningless.

on the contrary. Flowstone is comparable with labview, just not the vst part. I worked with labview and flowstone and you can do similair things. Labview is for the big companies.

jjs rights ... FlowStone can be compared with NI LabView, I also use it sometimes, LabWiew very powerful medium for many tasks, but it does not make VST, which is a distinctive feature of the main...

SinthEdit is very stingy, and comparing the two, it is simply the Chinese toy...

Finally someone who knows what i'm talking about

My 2 cent's..
Programming is not too Hard. It is just not!
So, why not stopping to use this little toy and start serious development? Many things are also easier with code than with this graphical tool.

What it's hard? DSP, and this doesn't change when you move to a real programming language.

What i think really lacks in the world of VST's is a free, nice to use, c++ framework (like Juce) that use other scripting languages for UI's.
In the world of Audio plugins, Juce excluded, there's a big lack of well documented, easy to configure tools for programming.


For all you guys, very nice to create and understand DSP, you don't need FS anymore or you just use it as prototyping tool.

Ok.... I've been keeping this to myself for too long. I guess it is time to actually ask... Do you want a crossplatform (Windows - Mac - intel & Arm Linux) graphical programing tool with an integrated scripting language similar to c++, 32 and 64 bit compatible, that can export to Vst, Au, standalone, that if crowdfunded succesfully might be opensourced and therefore serve as a programming framework to those interested in doing some lower level programming? If so, PM me.

Hi Tzarls..
Nope, i just would like a framework with some tools that is able to:
- create Xplatform projects for each IDE (VS, Xcode etc) or have a build tool (cMake?) which can easily be used to compile the projects with the same (at least 90%) codebase on each system
- have a easy to use UI subset (or include support of some libraries) easy to develop with ( this can also be plain support of GUi Builders like QT)
- to be free and opensource (I think the company can sell pro support)
- with a big number of components (like classes or assemblies) ready to use and extensible and overridable
- to be ready to compile as VST, AU, etc etc.

Then if someone would like to spend time for making a wired-graphical something.. it will be nice for prototyping.
You can't do all graphically, it will cost to much.

I think will be better to make a the graphical tool as a software that load classes (imagine a FS module, primitive etc) prebuild and your own project classes
and wire them while providing the runtime to test what you are doing on the fly..
This workflow :
Code --> compile --> wire stuff --> play --> save schema --> code --> compile --> change schema if needed -> play .... -rf


(much more high level than FS, just wire up classes/function based on classes I/O)


Anyway, i'm not the DSP guy. I can code in many languages (primarly web) but i won't get any real life businness in this audio area, because it's not my field.

I think just like CoreStyler's thoughts exactly.

If DSP Robotic's owners wanted to make 64bit support and Mac comptability, they would did it many years ago. So they DON'T WANT TO SUPPORT 64 BIT and MAC. I don't know why, maybe someone wants it to be like that and pay DSP Robotics to not making this upgrades. Flowstone is dying and if no one (even DSPR) doesn't even try to save FS's life; I think it's time to move a professional platform (JUCE, WDL-ol, RACKAFX).

Sincerely...

What i think is that DSPR doesn't actually need the audio plugin market, since it's not a big deal in terms of Business. (and they are right)

And also, but this is just my opinion and i can't be sure of it, the software itself have to be rewritten entirely for supporting 64bit (it also need a 64bit flowstone version) and the things are even worse if we think to OSX.

SM, FS looks thigtly coupled to Win32 and 32bit X86 ASM. And maybe also some headache to port the ruby components.

The fact that you are here kindled debate about the death of a product does not mean that he is dead. If you want to write on LabViev write on it! Would you like to write on JUCE. Still FS analogues for VST does not exist.