KVR Audio

jupiter8 · Post by **jupiter8** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 10:54 am

The VSTID is such a unbelievable fuckup it's not even funny. I'm no ace programmer,far from it but even i know that using 4 chars as identifier for plugins just isn't going to cut it. What were they thinking ? Shaving of a couple of bytes from the DLL ? It makes no sense.

AdmiralQuality · Post by **AdmiralQuality** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 10:56 am

Sure jupiter8, but ignoring it completely isn't a solution.

(EDIT: And actually, is 4 billion possible VST IDs not enough? I agree it's clunky, but it serves a purpose.)

aciddose · Post by **aciddose** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 11:07 am

it isnt practical to expect coders to come up with unique ids of that short length on their own, and using a properitary system to manage this gives the owner of that system too much control.

those with tinfoil hats might want to speculate that this control aspect was the reasoning for adding this kind of otherwise useless implementation.

"Don't like the spec?"

of course, it isnt a spec though is it, when it isnt standardized and specified in accurate documentation.

for me, "lcd" doesnt refer to "least effort on part of the developer", it instead refers to the situation in which your code is most likely to work. i do use a "xhip" dword id, however it will never change. all my effects use "xhie". this seems to work in all existing hosts. based upon this observation (multiple plugins work with the same id) you can further find that ids of "0" will also work just fine, meaning you can completely ignore the id's value.

since it isnt any trouble to set the id to "xhip" or "xhie" and since some hosts may use the id as a component of their internal id (no information specified by the plugin should be null, all fields should be filled with distinctive information) i do so.

most plugins fail to bother to fill all data fields i listed in my previous post about this.

AdmiralQuality · Post by **AdmiralQuality** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 11:11 am

bidule.log wrote: Duplicate ID : xhie ( C:\Program Files\Steinberg\Vstplugins\KVR Characters\XHip-Aciddose\xhipeffects_wip\xhipeffects_compressor.dll )
Duplicate ID : xhie ( C:\Program Files\Steinberg\Vstplugins\KVR Characters\XHip-Aciddose\xhipeffects_wip\xhipeffects_filter.dll )
Duplicate ID : pih_ ( C:\Program Files\Steinberg\Vstplugins\KVR Characters\XHip-Aciddose\xhipeffects_wip\xhipeffects_filter_v3.dll )
Duplicate ID : pih_ ( C:\Program Files\Steinberg\Vstplugins\KVR Characters\XHip-Aciddose\xhipeffects_wip\xhipeffects_filter_v4.dll )
Duplicate ID : xhie ( C:\Program Files\Steinberg\Vstplugins\KVR Characters\XHip-Aciddose\xhipeffects_wip\xhipeffects_gate.dll )
Duplicate ID : xhie ( C:\Program Files\Steinberg\Vstplugins\KVR Characters\XHip-Aciddose\xhipeffects_wip\xhipeffects_hardclip.dll )
Duplicate ID : xhie ( C:\Program Files\Steinberg\Vstplugins\KVR Characters\XHip-Aciddose\xhipeffects_wip\xhipeffects_mdelay.dll )
Duplicate ID : xhie ( C:\Program Files\Steinberg\Vstplugins\KVR Characters\XHip-Aciddose\xhipeffects_wip\xhipeffects_parameq.dll )
Duplicate ID : xhie ( C:\Program Files\Steinberg\Vstplugins\KVR Characters\XHip-Aciddose\xhipeffects_wip\xhipeffects_phaser.dll )
Duplicate ID : xhie ( C:\Program Files\Steinberg\Vstplugins\KVR Characters\XHip-Aciddose\xhipeffects_wip\xhipeffects_reverb.dll )

Many of these plugins can't be loaded in Bidule due to the duplicate IDs.

So there you go, a complaint!

(And I've already mentioned this to Dave @ Ploge but he didn't seem to agree. Sigh, if only all the host developers would do what I tell them, then I'd never hear a complain about Ableton or FLS again!

)

AdmiralQuality · Post by **AdmiralQuality** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 11:13 am

aciddose wrote:most plugins fail to bother to fill all data fields i listed in my previous post about this.

Hmmm, you haven't surveyed host behavior enough to know about these issues but you seem to know what "most plugins" do? There's a lot fewer hosts than plugs!

Dude.

jupiter8 · Post by **jupiter8** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 11:17 am

Are'nt the Plogue Bidule guys the only ones who enforce this? I thought even Steinberg themselves cared about the same IDs. Or did they change that (yet again) in C4?

One could imagine a scenario where if enough plugins don't work in those hosts they'd change that nonsense. Far from an ideal situation i admit. But i don't quite see why a host developer would enforce such a stupid design to begin with. It's not like you have to.

aciddose · Post by **aciddose** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 11:22 am

it is rediculous. if the owners of bidule are aware of the issue and are unwilling to correct it, my plugins will not function in that host. the problem is far more serious than they seem to realize, and through using the "plugin id" dword rather than constructing a meaningful id code from all available information they essentially lack any kind of functional id system in their host at all. the reason they refuse to implement a proper identification system is not due to some dedication to a standard, it is due to programmer lazyness. "lcd" for them seems to mean "least developer effort" like i mentioned before. implementing a proper identification system will increase the flexibility of that system many times.

if multiple versions of my plugin were to use different id codes, this would be redundant as the version code is already modified. this seems to be the oposite of "lcd", rather the dword id seems to add reduntant and useless information with the intent of easing the requirement of efforts to build a proper identification system for the host developer - originally stainberg.

as for the complaint specificly regarding the effects, the effects plugins are actually all a single wrapper plugin which loads a plugin in my own format internally. in order to "fix" this issue, i have to provide the individual internal plugins externally while supplying a single wrapper. the problem with this is it means you give up the ability to use the host's internal plugin management system. however, with bidule that isnt such a concern now is it? what exactly is being given up?

AdmiralQuality · Post by **AdmiralQuality** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 11:23 am

AFAICT, Steinberg hosts first use the VST ID. Then if there are duplicates, they will further disambiguate the .dll choice by the .dll filename that was originally loaded.

But if there aren't any ID conflicts, they will accept ANY named .dll as long as it's the only one in your system with an ID that was the same as the one in your project. This way the user can rename a .dll, or the developer can change the .dll name can change in a later version, and projects will still load.

Really, there's 4 billion possible IDs guys and it takes 20 seconds to register them at Steinberg. http://service.steinberg.de/databases/p ... n?openForm You're just munging up the whole industry by not playing along.

AdmiralQuality · Post by **AdmiralQuality** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 11:27 am

aciddose wrote: however, with bidule that isnt such a concern now is it? what exactly is being given up?

That I can't access any but the first found of each ID. So of the 10 or so of your plugs I have installed, I can only use 3 of them in Bidule.

Yes, I agree, Plogue's fault and it could be better. But your fault for not spending 30 seconds to be on spec (WHATEVER the spec says, it's not yours to define!) AND TO NOT BE IN VIOLATION OF YOUR AGREEMENT WITH STEINBERG THAT YOU IMPLICITLY AGREED TO BY USING THEIR SDK.

Dude!

aciddose · Post by **aciddose** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 11:27 am

"munging up the whole industry"

there is no industry here, not a standardized industry. stainberg refuses to properally standardize on a plugin format, instead they desire to have a properitary format which gives them control. individuals like myself refuse to be held at the whim of such people, especially since they are very poorly skilled developers and engineers, if you would even go so far as you refer to them as such.

if the situation were different where they were highly skilled, highly motivated and generous individuals i would be willing to allow them control. they are however the oposite of all these things.

aciddose · Post by **aciddose** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 11:29 am

"AND TO NOT BE IN VIOLATION OF YOUR AGREEMENT WITH STEINBERG THAT YOU IMPLICITLY AGREED TO BY USING THEIR SDK. "

i'm not using their sdk i'm afraid. i never agreed to any licence.

AdmiralQuality · Post by **AdmiralQuality** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 11:29 am

It's not your decision as to whether it's "proper" or not AD. You are in violation of the agreement and you are completely free to NOT write VST plugins.

This is the difference between how you and I do things. I'd just fix it. You blame everyone else.

aciddose · Post by **aciddose** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 11:31 am

i'm also completely free to write "vst" plugins just as much as i'm free to do anything else i wish.

infact i can take virtually any peice of data and label and distribute it as a "vst plugin" and nobody really can say anything about that. that however wouldnt be very useful to anyone.

AdmiralQuality · Post by **AdmiralQuality** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 11:33 am

aciddose wrote:i'm also completely free to write "vst" plugins just as much as i'm free to do anything else i wish.

Sorry. But technically you're not.

aciddose · Post by **aciddose** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 11:35 am

the only way i could be prevented is if stainberg owned patents on the binary interface used by "vst" plugins. since they could not be granted such patents they were forced to attempt to use a eula licence agreement on a peice of copyright protected source code. this however doesnt work since you can not replace patents with some copyright-licence acrobatics. if you could, patents wouldnt need to exist.

even if they did own such patents, they could only enforce them through a very expensive legal procedure and probably couldnt claim damages.

infact, even if i had agreed to some eula licence on some sdk provided by them in the past, such a licence wouldnt even be valid since in order to be valid it must grant something. even if it were a proper licence and implement in a practical manner which it is not, it is extremely unlikely it could stand up in court. even if it could stand up in court it would be very expensive for them to bring a case against me. if they were to request that i apear in a german court i can simply refuse to bother. the idea they can do anything about this even if they have any right to do so (which they do not) is laughable.

in order to even bring a case against me in a local canadian civil court they would first need to have several things. they would first need to get my name which would be possible through hearsay, but then such a case would never happen since it would be immediately dismissed without any evidence that person is indeed "aciddose", or that "aciddose" even distributes a "vst" plugin. if they could get my name through my isp (requiring a court order which would never be granted, or isp cooperation, likewise) there are other things they would need. i'm not a lawyer, ask one.

if they could manage this they would then need to convince a local canadian civil court to grant them damages or give an order based upon the 'evidence' they have which would be none. this is assuming of course they'd even have anything to base such a case upon which they wouldnt. more likely, at this stage they would have spent tens of thousands of dollars hunting me down in order to get the case thrown out.

ah, and, what about the thousands of other individuals just like me?

whole idea =

XHip--Please finish your synth!!