Coming Next

[Benedict]

The Infinite J was working on multiple cores earlier than most as there is a kind of multi-core implimentation in 1.4 So it seems odd that it isn't happening (visibly at least) in 2.

How well does manual allocation of cores work in 1.4? After all if that does work well maybe that would make a decent workaround till 2.x goes multi-core and all the Reaper converts can come back to the promised land.

[Caleb]

I'm not sure about anyone else, but one of the things I thought XT2 was being rewritten from scratch was to flesh out the background processes better to support newer things, like multiple processors. I honestly thought part of the rewrite was so that things don't have to be "hacked" into the XT1.4 codebase... Things like new interfaces aren't really hacking I suspect, though I haven't seen the source-code. Usually when one wants/needs to rewrite from scratch, the foundations are of a nature where it's cleaner and better to do so. Foundations such as audio engine and processing methods... Which include multiple processor support.

So... In all seriousness, I thought part of it was (and I'm sure I read a post from Jorgen hinting at, if not directly stating, this) to get multiple core functionality working better, more integrated into the system.

However, I might have read what I wanted to into it, instead of what was actually there. Nevertheless, the best time to include multi-processor support is when writing the foundations, because the best usage of it happens when it is taken into account for the whole processes. Well, I'm not a long time programmer, but I have read that from programmers. Maybe that's purely opinion only from some, but it makes logical sense to me. However, it has not yet been done and I myself would have tried to get some of that function in there from the start, in order to simplify the process for me later on, because I would have structured my threads expecting multiple core usage, instead of not. I leave you with that thought.

Of course we're overlooking the possibility that multiple core processing was actually in XT2 from the start and it's deliberately turned off for some reason only understood by jorgen himself?

Nothing like a good bit of random speculation in the morning.

Regards
Caleb

[druid]

Of course we're overlooking the possibility that multiple core processing was actually in XT2 from the start and it's deliberately turned off for some reason only understood by jorgen himself?

Nothing like a good bit of random speculation in the morning. :hihi:

Regards
Caleb

This is a fair point (as a possibility). I have wondered about this myself. But I can't see a reason to have it disabled for, what, almost a year? More than?

I personally have the feeling that it's not in there, but then I am indeed a pessimist. I haven't lost my hope though; I cling to hope even past the point where it is useful. :P

[tibor]

let's all not forget the "leaky send" issue. that should definitely be fixed ASAP. "pre-fader" options would also be nice but not as important as having sends that actually work.

[D-Fusion]

let's all not forget the "leaky send" issue. that should definitely be fixed ASAP. "pre-fader" options would also be nice but not as important as having sends that actually work.

I agree
But it is also very important to add multicore support at this early stage since it might introduce some bugs in the beginning.

Look at the Multicore handling in XT 1.41 which is broken and should be fixed or removed

I don't like to be forced to use only 1 cpu when i have 2.

[tibor]

i just got a chance to try xt2 on my new laptop (getting a hold of sata drivers through a virtual floppy drivers and slipstreaming them onto an xp pro install was interesting enough btw) and... it shows on both cores, plus performance is much much faster than my other computer, which same ram amount and motherboard bus speed. if xt has no multi-core support... does this mean it'll get even fasterrr? (kiddy gleaming eyes gaze/grin)

hehe

[djsubject]

Coming next
- You can now add VSTs from right-click on track in sequencer
- You can now add VSTs from right-click on FX slots in mixer
- Added support for normalize audio files
- Duplicate sequencer could sometimes cause a crash, now fixed
- Back space now works also as delete
- Fixed bug with Back space and delete key on MacOSX
- MIDI playback only worked on first arrangement in sequencer, now fixed
- Added loop button in master transporter
- New speedbutton for adding tracks and plugins in sequencer
- New channel strip in sequencer with option to show/hide eq, sends, insert

[djsubject]

- Will now zoom in/out at songpos when autoscroll is enabled

[Caleb]

Ooooh - some more stuff.
I wonder if that means that a beta is going to pop up fairly soon.

Daddy needs a new version of XT2.

Regards
Caleb

[DHR53]

Finally something "coming next." Yayyyyy! XT2 still runs fast, and is pretty smooth on the Mac. It's funny, because myself... I don't use half the stuff in Logic, and have said I'd prefer a host that just had the (few) features I actually used the most. XT2 is pretty close to that... but, everyone wants all the stuff added back in! Probably should be the two versions... Modular and XT2. Hmmmm.... I still wouldn't want too much added to XT2. MO though

[jens]

- loop-locators now snap according to the snap settings


Pretty please???

[druid]

Finally something "coming next." Yayyyyy! XT2 still runs fast, and is pretty smooth on the Mac. It's funny, because myself... I don't use half the stuff in Logic, and have said I'd prefer a host that just had the (few) features I actually used the most. XT2 is pretty close to that... but, everyone wants all the stuff added back in! Probably should be the two versions... Modular and XT2. Hmmmm.... I still wouldn't want too much added to XT2. MO though :roll:

I'm glad for you, that what you use in the host is the incredibly stripped down version that has the same name as something that is supposedly a previous version but far greater. I'm glad you're currently using a sequencer-based host that used to have some modular ability but now is much more limited and you're happy with the lack of power. I'm glad you can roll your eyes at so many of the previous customers who bought it and helped spread the word of energyXT that suddenly realised they will be waiting a long time for the program to be what it was once before, some of whom have realised it is likely it never will be, and that the REAL energyXT, what was originally, version 1, will not be updated anymore with any bugfixes even, let alone the few remaining features some of which are in XT2 and would've been nice in 1.

You realise these extra features we want won't get in your way right? They won't slow down the host by much if at all, right? If it's almost perfect for you, awesome, I think Jorgen should fix up the few remaining issues of yours so that he can focus on getting it to actually work nicely for everyone else.

If you think this response is uncalled for, how about next time not rolling your eyes. Thanks in advance for your consideration.

[walrez]

Finally something "coming next." Yayyyyy! XT2 still runs fast, and is pretty smooth on the Mac.

Hi, just out of curiosity: Does xt2 for the Mac follow Mac-ui guidelines?
Is it different to the Windows version?
Thanks

[masstronaut]

I don't think it does walrez. Menus are in the window.

(I'm a PC user - but I tried it on a friends Mac, so this isn't an expert opinion)

Anyway, this all looks good, nice to see things happening. I'll be well impressed if audio recording works smoothly for me.

Now, bring on the multi-outs for the drum track and midi clock...

[acid1]

poor jorgen, this thread is like ->