Mutools, you told me in the Multiprocessor post, that implementing of that support will not be easy...
One workaround I would be pleased about, would be making a "multi" rewire slave of MuLab as well...
Each Rewire slave would use one other core and has access to another 2GB RAM beside the host...
So, if you could make 3 rewire slaves from MuLab, I could take full use out of my QuadCore and would have access of 8 GB Ram in total...
That would be an alternative to Multiprocessor support I could live with till you have the idea how to make the "real" one work and I wouldn't care about having to save my work in each slave seperately...
Or perhaps you have an better idea, how to connect multiple instances of MuLab without the negative things of rewire...??
Don't know, if this is a silly idea...? Perhaps could others share their thoughts...
Trancit
Perhaps a workaround...
-
- KVRist
- 268 posts since 8 Nov, 2002
Hi Trancit,
I also would like to see Mulab as slave rewire, so i could also conect it with Muzys, but IMO the best for Mulab is never be a slave!
Sems contradictory but i think that make it slave would be dangerous, because there's a free version with all the power of the MUX and Musynth avalaible, and some could use most of it's power on other sequencers, using mulab just as a virtual synth/fx without even considering try it as a main sequencer.
I would vote for an option to interconnect various mulab instances, not only in the same computer, but also by LAN or even internet. But if i have to choose (because of dev efforts/time), i prefer to wait till multicore gets developed and priorize some other dev aspects that are as important as multicore, like IMO:
Even more easyness and intuitiveness
More modules, oscillators, filters, midi modules, modulators, fm synthesis, audio triguered env, etc etc etc
A huge HQ library, so it gets much more integration/autonomy
Loop auto slicing/timestretching
I also would like to see Mulab as slave rewire, so i could also conect it with Muzys, but IMO the best for Mulab is never be a slave!
Sems contradictory but i think that make it slave would be dangerous, because there's a free version with all the power of the MUX and Musynth avalaible, and some could use most of it's power on other sequencers, using mulab just as a virtual synth/fx without even considering try it as a main sequencer.
I would vote for an option to interconnect various mulab instances, not only in the same computer, but also by LAN or even internet. But if i have to choose (because of dev efforts/time), i prefer to wait till multicore gets developed and priorize some other dev aspects that are as important as multicore, like IMO:
Even more easyness and intuitiveness
More modules, oscillators, filters, midi modules, modulators, fm synthesis, audio triguered env, etc etc etc
A huge HQ library, so it gets much more integration/autonomy
Loop auto slicing/timestretching
-
- KVRAF
- 12737 posts since 24 Jun, 2008 from Europe
Quick reply:
1) Making MU.LAB a ReWire slave is not planned.
2) There may be a possible 'in between' solution to take advantage of multi-core while avoiding certain technical complexities. It's allowing to have multiple Modular Areas in a single session, then each MA is processed by a core. The user can spread its synths and effects over the different MAs. To avoid confusion: this is not yet a planned thing or so, this still is only an idea that should to be researched more.
1) Making MU.LAB a ReWire slave is not planned.
2) There may be a possible 'in between' solution to take advantage of multi-core while avoiding certain technical complexities. It's allowing to have multiple Modular Areas in a single session, then each MA is processed by a core. The user can spread its synths and effects over the different MAs. To avoid confusion: this is not yet a planned thing or so, this still is only an idea that should to be researched more.
-
- KVRAF
- 5048 posts since 30 May, 2006 from Hollow Earth
Some how I agree with this maybe beacuse I am committed to make Mu.Lab my main composition POWER tool.mutools wrote:Quick reply:
1) Making MU.LAB a ReWire slave is not planned.
Hence.... no temptations
I would love to see a Jo's version of a Multicore system just because his vision is so unique!2) There may be a possible 'in between' solution to take advantage of multi-core while avoiding certain technical complexities. It's allowing to have multiple Modular Areas in a single session, then each MA is processed by a core. The user can spread its synths and effects over the different MAs. To avoid confusion: this is not yet a planned thing or so, this still is only an idea that should to be researched more.
MuLab-Reaper of course 
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 4461 posts since 27 Jul, 2004
No problem with this, because.....mutools wrote:Quick reply:
1) Making MU.LAB a ReWire slave is not planned.
...your version is so much better!!!!!!!!!!!!!mutools wrote:2) There may be a possible 'in between' solution to take advantage of multi-core while avoiding certain technical complexities. It's allowing to have multiple Modular Areas in a single session, then each MA is processed by a core. The user can spread its synths and effects over the different MAs. To avoid confusion: this is not yet a planned thing or so, this still is only an idea that should to be researched more.
Yes, that would be definetely the better idea....
Trancit
