Let's talk reaktor 6.4

[mcbpete]

to be honest I think it will make it more likely that I'll open Reaktor to quickly mock up something modular.

Absolutely, me too! Like when the BEAP additions arrived in Max, I previously felt pretty darn lost in where to start with creating new projects - This new workflow definitely will make me fire up Reaktor more and make my own stuff rather than pretty much using it exclusively as a shell to load other people's devices.

[gentleclockdivider]

The ones asking for front panel were the ones new to the block system , the majority thought that blocks was a new structure in reaktor hierarchy which they are not
Block are nice because they sound great , but in essence these are just wired up instruments adhering a certain rule , al made with core and primary for gui purposses .
Building another layer on top without restructuring/tackling the fundamental issues is imho not future proof .
Like T.Helze said , nuts and bolts etcc ... a rushed out job to satisfy and reach out to a new audience .
Nat.Instr. not providing the tools for adjusting our own blocks to the new system clearly shows they didn't care about the advanced users/builders .
Racks is closed ecosystem , and that is not what reaktor is about ( I have no problem with closed core structures for protecting intellectual copyright )

[ccooll]

Yes, the Rack files simply reference the saved ism files, which is why the Racks are so small. This made it a lot easier to do Euro Reakt bug fixes, as I didn't need to update each .ens file (In the User Library Euro Reakt, most of the .ens files have wildly out-of-date Blocks compared to the rest of the folder).

It *seems* like you are saying that this new version makes development of Blocks for Racks much easier due to the reference based system.

I'm assuming that you have access to some sort of developer version of Reaktor though. The consumer release version doesn't support building of Rack content at all!
It's not easier - it's completely blocked AFAIK.

If this is so, Its really important to be clear about it - full disclosure etc. - don't want people thinking they will have the same building experience as you if they buy Reaktor - assuming you do have access to non-standard development features that is.

[EvilDragon]

Nope. He has the usual Reaktor version (well, also betas I would suppose). Blocks need to be encoded and entered in NI's product database, so that it can be authorized and then referenced in Racks. Pretty much the same thing as with Kontakt.


Developing Blocks for Racks is pretty much the same as with regular Blocks, plus some additions on how the inputs/outputs should be handled UI-wise, etc.


Also, no, Racks were not a "rushed out job", it was under development for quite some time...

[ccooll]

Nope. He has the usual Reaktor version (well, also betas I would suppose). Blocks need to be encoded and entered in NI's product database, so that it can be authorized and then referenced in Racks.

So the very positive building experience he has had, with the reference based system simplifying development iterations, depended on access to authorisation on NI's product database - something that is not available to the majority of licenced users - which is exactly my point, and should have been disclosed along with his glowing praise of the new system.

[pdxindy]

I installed 6.3 and the other additions for exploring Racks. I like the wiring. That is a worthwhile development.

I find Reaktor complicated and unintuitive. When I look at it I want nothing to do with it. However, it does seem NI is making an effort and if I treat Racks as a presetless modular system I can add a new Rack, wire something pretty easily, save that project and avoid having to deal with Reaktor much at all. On that basis I might use it from time to time. Blocks-Racks have a very good sound quality.

[mholloway]

Like T.Helze said , nuts and bolts etcc ... a rushed out job to satisfy and reach out to a new audience .

I'm sure you know a lot about the development process of Reaktor, the required coding staff and time allocation it takes to manage and upgrade a piece of software of this level of depth and complexity, and thereby are able to accurately deduce the literal timeline of development and conclude it was a rushed job. Cool story.

I get that you're angry about this extensive, free update. Your twenty five + posts repeating your core complaints have, indeed, been seen. But the bullshit stream doesn't help anybody. You're not coding Reaktor, you have no idea if it was rushed or not.

[JoeCat]

Nope. He has the usual Reaktor version (well, also betas I would suppose). Blocks need to be encoded and entered in NI's product database, so that it can be authorized and then referenced in Racks. Pretty much the same thing as with Kontakt.


Developing Blocks for Racks is pretty much the same as with regular Blocks, plus some additions on how the inputs/outputs should be handled UI-wise, etc.


Also, no, Racks were not a "rushed out job", it was under development for quite some time...

So if a user makes his own blocks and wants to use them in racks just for personal use, they'd still have to get serials / auth from NI? Does anyone know if they can be private to an account? I'm not familiar with the Kontakt system.

I get where NI may be going, and a Rack eco-system similar to VCV, Cherry, etc. would not be unwelcome - I'd love to see incentive for Mutable, PSP, to sell bespoke blocks, locked down the same way the Monark blocks are, etc.

But it would be nice to be able to freely take our own Blocks, or edited blocks from the user-library, etc., and convert to Rack. So essentially you could go one way and not the other.

[vurt]

Like T.Helze said , nuts and bolts etcc ... a rushed out job to satisfy and reach out to a new audience .

I'm sure you know a lot about the development process of Reaktor, the required coding staff and time allocation it takes to manage and upgrade a piece of software of this level of depth and complexity, and thereby are able to accurately deduce the literal timeline of development and conclude it was a rushed job. Cool story.

I get that you're angry about this extensive, free update. Your twenty five + posts repeating your core complaints have, indeed, been seen. But the bullshit stream doesn't help anybody. You're not coding Reaktor, you have no idea if it was rushed or not.

aside from anything, its just rolled out.
we don't know if its going to change once the bugs in this bit are ironed out
for all we know this getting blocks authorised is a stepping stone.
or maybe they will only allow certain levels of quality in to the rack system?

doesn't mean we cant still share blocks the old way
we haven't lost anything, merely gained an additional method of use, that may change anyway...

is it the best ever thing even better than sliced bread ever was? probably not, but its far from a kick in the balls as well

[gentleclockdivider]

I would be surprised if third party developers would adopt the rack system , which N.I. is hinting at .
Apart from michael hetrick's amazing euroreakt modules , that will be the only third party development we'll ever see
Would you rather prefer coding in an optimised language like c++ or reaktor core ?

[JoeCat]

I would be surprised if third party developers would adopt the rack system , which N.I. is hinting at .
Apart from michael hetrick's amazing euroreakt modules , that will be the only third party development we'll ever see
Would you rather prefer coding in an optimised language like c++ or reaktor core ?

This is true (and I do, i fact, code in C++, but sadly not for audio) - not easy to port to Reaktor.
I wasn't thinking of that, but if NI is looking towards a third-party ecosystem, they should have.
It's not quite the same as scripting for Kontakt where the IP starts with the sample content. Here's, it's all about your code.

[EvilDragon]

So if a user makes his own blocks and wants to use them in racks just for personal use, they'd still have to get serials / auth from NI? Does anyone know if they can be private to an account? I'm not familiar with the Kontakt system.

Yes to first question, no to the second.

[EvilDragon]

Apart from michael hetrick's amazing euroreakt modules , that will be the only third party development we'll ever see

That is most certainly not true.

[vurt]

Apart from michael hetrick's amazing euroreakt modules , that will be the only third party development we'll ever see

That is most certainly not true.

im not sure who to believe
logic says "third parties will go where the customers are"
but gcd is so convincing i think ill just delete reaktor, as this is surely the end of it

[Deep Purple]

Apart from michael hetrick's amazing euroreakt modules , that will be the only third party development we'll ever see

That is most certainly not true.

im not sure who to believe
logic says "third parties will go where the customers are"
but gcd is so convincing i think ill just delete reaktor, as this is surely the end of it