I upgraded to Battery v2.0 and it uses about 5 percent more CPU in SL2.

YOu can use less plugs in SX2 than SX1 and I'm assuming the same is true with SX3 v. SX2.


Woohoo. *sigh*

neptunefix wrote:

I upgraded to Battery v2.0 and it uses about 5 percent more CPU in SL2. YOu can use less plugs in SX2 than SX1 and I'm assuming the same is true with SX3 v. SX2. Woohoo. *sigh*

Whoa, man..an entire 5% more CPU in v2?! So much for that upgrade..thanks for that judicious & worthy heads up..

"no shit" comes to mind.. of course it uses more CPU, it has much more features/options per cell. DUH!

I max out my system resources on some of my projects. I already have to offload much of it and it's already suffering enough. I have a P4 2.6c 1gig ram, 2x hard drives, etc.. 5 percent will mean 2 to 6 less compressors or EQs that I can use in real time. It all adds up.

It's just disappointing that the sampler wasn't optimized more to off-set the new features.. also disappointing that the features are automaticall loaded, thus consuming more resources.

thanks for your witty, unprovoked "comeback", though.

does it disk stream ??

cos if it does it becomes my sampler of choice - love the interface - if it doesnt im not bothered

wow, 5 percent more!! Even my Kittens recognised that, Randolph (my young cat) said that there is someting bigger on the screen. Hmmm, I throwed a plastic mouse for him and said that there is nothing...

....

HI

D - I almost fell off my chair man - you can be an EVIL MUTHER @ timez .

Flipper.

original flipper wrote:

HI D - I almost fell off my chair man - you can be an EVIL MUTHER @ timez . Flipper.

sorry..

It seems that major versions add features and minor versions tweak efficiency. Actually, I don't know if NI ever really bother to look at efficiency. Do they?

Oh, and by 5% do you mean 5% more than whatever percentage it used before or just 5% of the CPU in total? Because jumping from 10% CPU-usage to 10.5% is trivial, but a jump from 5% to 10% means a full double of the previous usage!

pough wrote:

It seems that major versions add features and minor versions tweak efficiency. Actually, I don't know if NI ever really bother to look at efficiency. Do they? Oh, and by 5% do you mean 5% more than whatever percentage it used before or just 5% of the CPU in total? Because jumping from 10% CPU-usage to 10.5% is trivial, but a jump from 5% to 10% means a full double of the previous usage!

listen to pough - that man can think - erm, I was wondering the same b.t.w.

Sure they do pough... The kontakt engine used to cause major CPU loads. They made it very efficient, compared early versions. Same goes with absynth, that used to be a CPU hog, now it barely hits the CPU meter. Battery has always been a low CPU plug, and it still is... I think this guy is just dreaming that such a nice drum sampler would still be in the 2-3% range.

To answer your question... I have not hit over 6 or 7% on a P4 2.2 gHz machine. Sits at about 4-5%.

Anyways, for the people who have recieved their updates in the mail... (I recieved mine yesterday.) Is there a way to configure the number of outputs Battery creates in your mixer? By default its 32 (!!!), and I can't seem to figure out how to cut it back to 8 or 10. This is very annoying as it fills your mixer beyond belief causing terrible views of the mixer. Sure you could hide some, but I don't feel like going trough 11-32 and hitting "can hide" each time I load the plugin! The manual mentions NOTHING.

Hit the options button & the outputs section is in the upper right corner. I don't know if that's changed in v2, but you'll probably need to reload the instrument to reset the mixer & Battery.

Hi sicklecell,

That option is gone in V2. I know what you mean, since I have been a long time V1 user.

pough wrote:

Actually, I don't know if NI ever really bother to look at efficiency. Do they?

What ever makes you say so? I've always found NI's plugins to be some of the most optimized in the market, especially their synths...

visa tapani wrote:

pough wrote: Actually, I don't know if NI ever really bother to look at efficiency. Do they? What ever makes you say so? I've always found NI's plugins to be some of the most optimized in the market, especially their synths...

I didn't say anything. I asked a question. And before you ask me why I asked the question, it was because I didn't know the answer.

pough wrote:

It seems that major versions add features and minor versions tweak efficiency. Actually, I don't know if NI ever really bother to look at efficiency. Do they? Oh, and by 5% do you mean 5% more than whatever percentage it used before or just 5% of the CPU in total? Because jumping from 10% CPU-usage to 10.5% is trivial, but a jump from 5% to 10% means a full double of the previous usage!

I meant 5 percent of total CPU. I tested it on a project that was at 20% and putting the same kit in battery 2 instead of 1 made it go up to 25%.. so I tried it on a bigger project that was at 94ish percent and the project could no longer run smoothly with battery 2. I had to put battery 1 back in the VSTi slot.. or trade using a few compressors.

Apparently, this is not important to many people on here. Just thought I would share.

neptunefix wrote:

Apparently, this is not important to many people on here. Just thought I would share.

It's not that it isn't important; of course it is. But your original post did not clarify what you just said, so thanks for bineg clear about it. I use an even slower machine than you do, so don't think I'm on a mountain top looking down, casue I'm not, but you have to take into account that it's not a bad CPU jump to add compression & EQ to each multi-layer cell..Sounds like they still did pretty well, it's just machines like yours & mine are in order to be updated..At least if you wanna take advantage of bigger better stuff like Battery II..

Hey neptunefix...

Did you figure out how to change the number of outputs you can configure in V2?

You can't do some things with version one, that you can do with version two. That's the fact of life. So if you want to run Battery version 2, I think you should upgrade your computer to version 2 as well. I recently acquired few nice VSTi's and now my good machine, is not so nice anymore. So I'm planning an upgrade of my computer to a new version as well.

It's a never ending story.

When I was still on my old PIII, updating to RMIV(the first version. Peter had optimized it later) had roughly 40% more CPU usage than RMIII. I was really pissed off at the time, to be honest.

I think it's not good to have a 5% raise on a P4. It's a vital info for ppl who are still using older computers IMHO...

Goa Head wrote:

Is there a way to configure the number of outputs Battery creates in your mixer? By default its 32 (!!!), and I can't seem to figure out how to cut it back to 8 or 10. This is very annoying as it fills your mixer beyond belief causing terrible views of the mixer. Sure you could hide some, but I don't feel like going trough 11-32 and hitting "can hide" each time I load the plugin! The manual mentions NOTHING.

Actually, I'm suspecting this is a major culprit. If there is a way to cut down the outputs, then I'd surely like to know. I thought I was just missing something obvious in how to change that setting.. maybe I am.

neptunefix wrote:

Goa Head wrote: Is there a way to configure the number of outputs Battery creates in your mixer? By default its 32 (!!!), and I can't seem to figure out how to cut it back to 8 or 10. This is very annoying as it fills your mixer beyond belief causing terrible views of the mixer. Sure you could hide some, but I don't feel like going trough 11-32 and hitting "can hide" each time I load the plugin! The manual mentions NOTHING. Actually, I'm suspecting this is a major culprit. If there is a way to cut down the outputs, then I'd surely like to know. I thought I was just missing something obvious in how to change that setting.. maybe I am.

I sure hope we're both missing 'something' then.

I posted the outputs question in the battery forum at NI's site..you guys can go over there & see the responses as easily as I can

i don't know what it says on the NI forum, but I know that the number of outputs affects the cpu usage

this was one of the cpu improvements in Project 5 from v 1.0 to 1.5 -- as v 1.0 defaulted to all outputs enabled, while v 1.5 made it user configurable

when you're talking about 32 outputs that could make a difference

Sure I can sickle. I'm a registered NI owner over there. 'CyanDragonfly' I just don't like forum style there, and it never remembers my password.

Battery 2 is amazing but it shut down my system sometimes due to very CPU usage. My Athlon XP 2500+ reset automatically unfortunally.

Hay Nord, I dont think a CPU overload can cause automatic re-start. I could be wrong tho. Do you remember what you were doing with Battery when it crashed? Maybe you found some obscure bug or something.
See if you can replicate it.

I dont have any CPU issues with Battery 2.0 (so far). Its still agile as far as I can see. Maybe 1 or 2 percent more than the old battery. I'm on a 2.8ghz PIV.
Hopefully they do optimize it as much as possible and make it as efficient as Kontakt/Intakt. Those things are light as a feather on my system.

So, has anyone figured out how to customize the number of outputs on Battery 2.0 yet?

You cant yet I dont think. Supposedly its in beta and gonna be added soon.

AD80 wrote:

Hopefully they do optimize it as much as possible and make it as efficient as Kontakt/Intakt. Those things are light as a feather on my system.

This brings R4's premature release to mind..

neptunefix wrote:

I meant 5 percent of total CPU.

What sort of CPU are you using?
I would only find this halfway acceptable until anything below 1GHz or so. In all other cases it'd be more or less ridiculous, regardless of the new features (which should be deactivated anyways, as long as you don't use them).

neptunefix wrote:

So, has anyone figured out how to customize the number of outputs on Battery 2.0 yet?

It can't be customized at the moment. An NI representative mentioned in a German synth forum that this is a known problem and that it will be fixed in the next update (due ?)...

FT

Sascha Franck wrote:

neptunefix wrote: I meant 5 percent of total CPU. What sort of CPU are you using? I would only find this halfway acceptable until anything below 1GHz or so. In all other cases it'd be more or less ridiculous, regardless of the new features (which should be deactivated anyways, as long as you don't use them).

Yeah there definitely needs to be some optimization done to it if people are having cpu problems with the filters/comps/EQ's turned off. Hopefully they're on the case.

Alot of manufacturers seem to be lazy with making built in effects, osc's, lfo's or whatever be properly bypassed when turned off. I really hope that's not the case with Battery 2. A 5% cpu increase and not being able to use less than 32 outputs doesn't sound like the NI I know. Ah well, I'm likely going to review it so I suppose I'll find out soon enough.

/Majken

Fette Töle wrote:

neptunefix wrote: So, has anyone figured out how to customize the number of outputs on Battery 2.0 yet? It can't be customized at the moment. An NI representative mentioned in a German synth forum that this is a known problem and that it will be fixed in the next update (due ?)... FT

It seems impossible that Battery 2 could have made it out the gate with this problem, by accident since it's one of the most important features. I'd be "demanding" a refund since in this condition, Battery 2 obviously can't replace Battery 1.

things i'm missing: http://www.nativeinstruments.de/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=14766

Dandruff wrote:

things i'm missing: http://www.nativeinstruments.de/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=14766

Ummm, try reading the instruction booklet? Cell rename is as easy as clicking on Cell tab, and then double click on the name. Same goes for sample browsing with the + - bit, but I see you figured that out too. Sorry, have to give you a bit of grief for something that's documented.

Devon

ah - thank you thats great.

Sascha Franck wrote:

neptunefix wrote: I meant 5 percent of total CPU. What sort of CPU are you using? I would only find this halfway acceptable until anything below 1GHz or so. In all other cases it'd be more or less ridiculous, regardless of the new features (which should be deactivated anyways, as long as you don't use them).

P4 2.4c

why the fuss about customising outputs? The 32 outputs are great, i must be missing something...?

mojogigolo wrote:

why the fuss about customising outputs? The 32 outputs are great, i must be missing something...?

A) In case you're using Cubase those wlll automatically appear in the mixer, once you activate Battery. In order not to clutter up the (allready cluttered up) mixer even more you'd need to make them hideable and hide them. Extra work.

B) They're apparently using up more CPU cycles.

Personally, I would never need 32 outs at all. Usually I'm using around 3-4 extra outs.

Sascha Franck wrote:

mojogigolo wrote: why the fuss about customising outputs? The 32 outputs are great, i must be missing something...? A) In case you're using Cubase those wlll automatically appear in the mixer, once you activate Battery. In order not to clutter up the (allready cluttered up) mixer even more you'd need to make them hideable and hide them. Extra work. B) They're apparently using up more CPU cycles. Personally, I would never need 32 outs at all. Usually I'm using around 3-4 extra outs.

A) That really sucks, I remember those Cubase days.

B) Any official word from N.I on this subject yet? Theres a lot of new features that could be adding extra CPU. I have a lot of outs in Kotakt and other plug-ins like EXT and it doesnt add any extra CPU. I dont think the extra unused outs are to blame for the extra cpu.

Hmm... Got to see Battery 2 on at a friend, he has a tad more powerful machine than I have at home, can't remember if it is AthlonXP 2600 or 2800 (mine is 2500).

Anyways, in FL Studio 4.5.1, it took 3% just idling in there, which went to whopping 4% when enabling the multi outs. Can't recall how much utilizing the filters and compressor took, had too much fun toying around with them I was impressed, something the first version never managed to do.

Wouldn't call it fatal but still, plugin taking this much CPU when it's not doing anything.

(In case you think in percents, that'd mean that a plugin not doing anything reguires what, 55 MHz for that 'doing nothing'...)

Optimising - in PC worlds it has always meant buy a faster computer

Regards,

JMH

Well here, Battery 1 with Future kit takes up around 1-2% of my Intel 2.53gHz machine, and 2-4% when I'm playing it. The same kit in Battery 2 takes 10% to 12% of my CPU with no changes. Not bad, but obviously they need to bypass parts of the plugin that aren't being called for.

Devon

DevonB wrote:

Well here, Battery 1 with Future kit takes up around 1-2% of my Intel 2.53gHz machine, and 2-4% when I'm playing it. The same kit in Battery 2 takes 10% to 12% of my CPU with no changes. Not bad, but obviously they need to bypass parts of the plugin that aren't being called for.

Err? You're calling an almost 10% increase of CPU demands on a 2.5GHz machine "not bad"?
Sorry, but what I call such a thing is ridiculous!
A rushed out release, not properly tested, probably (no, most likely even). Proper testing in general doesn't seem to be one of NIs strengths these days...

Sascha Franck wrote:

DevonB wrote: Well here, Battery 1 with Future kit takes up around 1-2% of my Intel 2.53gHz machine, and 2-4% when I'm playing it. The same kit in Battery 2 takes 10% to 12% of my CPU with no changes. Not bad, but obviously they need to bypass parts of the plugin that aren't being called for. Err? You're calling an almost 10% increase of CPU demands on a 2.5GHz machine "not bad"? Sorry, but what I call such a thing is ridiculous! A rushed out release, not properly tested, probably (no, most likely even). Proper testing in general doesn't seem to be one of NIs strengths these days...

Yes, I consider that to be not bad. 72 cells, 32 outs, I can accomplish pretty much anything for drums with that in that one instance. Typically, I use 3-4 stereo pair, sometimes more, depending on the song. No fear of running out of outputs on this baby, but I do hope they allow you to adjust this in a future release though.

Devon

DevonB wrote:

Yes, I consider that to be not bad. 72 cells, 32 outs, I can accomplish pretty much anything for drums with that in that one instance. Typically, I use 3-4 stereo pair, sometimes more, depending on the song. No fear of running out of outputs on this baby, but I do hope they allow you to adjust this in a future release though.

A) DR-008 has even more cells, without any of them taking up any resources, just because of "being there".
Apart from that I'm still wondering why NI is as lame as to not offer 127 cells (remember, MIDI has 127 notes...). Seriously, especially when using sliced up and dragged loops, this is a drawback.
But then, those NI developers NEVER seem to care about user wishes.

B) just the plain existance of more outs shouldn't necessarily cause more CPU demands. Again, in DR-008 this is not the case either.
Let alone that a configurable number of outputs is a MUST.

C) Anything else simply shouldn't cause any CPU overheads either. Filters and whatever should be switcheable.

I still think a higher CPU useags of around 10% is plainly ridiculous, especially as there's no need for this at all
As said before, to me this looks like a lousily tested (more like not exactly tested at all) and rushed out release.
Just as with too many products these days.
I'm getting seriously annoyed by all that. Just look at the number of complaints about SX3, Logic 7 and the likes.
Seems as if nobody cares about proper testing anymore at all. Greedy bastards!

Sascha Franck wrote:

But then, those NI developers NEVER seem to care about user wishes.

Well they listened to atleat my needs because B2 has everything I wanted . Feature and interface wise its right on as far as I can see.

Sascha Franck wrote:

I still think a higher CPU useags of around 10% is plainly ridiculous, especially as there's no need for this at all

Completely agree!!