Ohm Force plug-ins going 64bit

[whyterabbyt]

yet unlike pretty much every other developer you discount €20 for just one version

FTFY.

[AKJ]

1. 64 bit VST is a "bit-flavour" within the same plugin format. (and, as far as I know, there is also only one sdk. I understand that in practice creating a 64 bit dll from a 32 bit codebase might be a little work, but theoretically you just have to recompile)

It's not just a recompile as optimisations are based upon variable types and sizes. Such values as memory offsets and bit operations are set based upon a fixed word length. If you don't hardcode these, then they are not optimised. If you change the wordlength (to 64bit) you need to change these and reassess the optimisations. Then there's the fact that 32-bit and 64-bit are different instrucations sets, so any assembly you use also needs to be checked and possible redone.

Yes, you can all do this at the compiler level, with MACROS and Conditional compilation, but then you have to stick with language (C/Delphi whatever) code and libraries. These are meant for generic/general use and are not optimised for real-time, audio use.

So basically, you know nothing about this.

2. the plugin is quite old and to keep up with the competition ohmforce needs to create 64 bit. I am ready to pay for an sound and feature wise enhanced version that comes in 32+64 bit, but not for just offering 64 bit.

So when/if they develop VST3 ot AAX versions, since they will look and sound the same, they should be free also?

3. it does not create a good spirit even if it were justified. so what is better for ohmforce: make their customers happy so that they will buy again or disappoint them so that tthey are lost customers?

Or maybe, in these hard times, the company need to be paid for the time it spent working on the 64-bit versions and might stop if they don't. Where would the customers be then?

again, you are were not really reading before your comment. Regardding point one my main argument was that it is all within the same plugin format: VST. You are just commenting about the recompilation part. And even then you are misinterpreting. I clearly said that simply recompiling will just work in theory and that in practice it might be a little work. but definately less than a completely different plugin format.

regarding point 2: yes, I will stick with VST and I am only ready to pay for an VST version with enhanced featurtes. Your example does not refer to what I said.

regarding point 3: I do not know the business situation of Ohmforce, but, for sure, it would improve their situation to have happy customers. If the now need money so urgently that they will go down if we do not pay fort 64 bit they did something very wrong in the past (like: being too late with 64 bit, bad marketing, etc.). I would still feel sorry for them, because their products are good, but so are the products of other companies without such a strange business policy.

cheers, akj

[LeVzi]

I believe you did not get all the arguments right:

And I believe I wasnt making an argument, just stating a simple home truth.

1. 64 bit VST is a "bit-flavour" within the same plugin format. (and, as far as I know, there is also only one sdk. I understand that in practice creating a 64 bit dll from a 32 bit codebase might be a little work, but theoretically you just have to recompile)

Asserting that such a thing as an imaginary 'bit-flavour' somehow changes what you bought retrospectively is semantic wriggling. It doesnt change the situation. You got what you bought. If you want something more than that, the original option to get something more than that has not changed, and is not new.

2. the plugin is quite old and to keep up with the competition ohmforce needs to create 64 bit. I am ready to pay for an sound and feature wise enhanced version that comes in 32+64 bit, but not for just offering 64 bit.

Then don't pay for it. End of discussion.

3. it does not create a good spirit even if it were justified. so what is better for ohmforce: make their customers happy so that they will buy again or disappoint them so that tthey are lost customers?

You're assuming the majority of their customers took the cheap option and now think they have an automatic entitlement to other versions. I disagree, more people will have the pack, or worked it out, than you give credit for.
Of course it doesnt 'create a good spirit' amongst the professional whingers but I reckon they'd rather shave $20 off the cost of something so they can whine when their decisions have an impact. They'd find something to whine about anyway.

Ironically, you are whining about people with legitimate griefs with ohmforce, which makes you quite the hypocrite. Ohmforce haven't offered any of their existing users an olive branch even to swap 32bit single licenses for the 64bit ones, their attitude is if you want it, you pay for it. These "Other Versions" are for a minority of users who'd actually want AU, VST for mac and RTAS etc, i'd go as far as to say most are windows users who just want the 64bit version of the existing plug-ins.

When pretty much every other single company offers a free update to the 64bit version when it's availible, I dunno why Ohmforce think they are so special they can charge for it.

And as to the other guy, I am more than aware that porting from 32bit to 64bit is time consuming, but it's not like they are making these plug-ins from scratch are they, it's not version 2 of existing plug-ins, which rightly so should be charged for.

Anyway, they've made their stance pretty clear. And it is disappointing.

[whyterabbyt]

again, you are were not really reading before your comment. Regardding point one my main argument was that it is all within the same plugin format: VST.

Except its already the case that if you get a single license, then that doesnt actually cover everything 'within the same plugin format' ; you dont get theVST for both OS platforms, for example.

[khanyz]

I clearly said that simply recompiling will just work in theory and that in practice it might be a little work. but definately less than a completely different plugin format.

How is it definately less? You don't seem to know the first thing about software development so how can you make that statement.

In theory all things are possible, except possibly you being informed or correct.

However, in practise, if you've written code specifically for 32-bit and then need to migrate it to 64-bit, it will take some effort. Possibly more than a wrapper/format change. There is some argument about foresight when you code, but when deadlines, and customers, are looming you sometimes can't think ahead and just need to get it done.

[LeVzi]

yet unlike pretty much every other developer you discount €20 for just one version

FTFY.

How is that a fix ? Try not to misquote me next time.

They are charging €20 for the same plug-in in 64bit. Now show me a list of dev's who do that and i'll stand corrected.

[whyterabbyt]

Ironically, you are whining about people with legitimate griefs with ohmforce, which makes you quite the hypocrite.

Erm, no. Giving someone the rationale they refuse to accept isnt 'whining', its 'explaining.' But nice try.

Ohmforce haven't offered any of their existing users an olive branch even to swap 32bit single licenses for the 64bit ones

'Swap'? You mean 'well in practice, get the new one free and keep the old one' dont you?

, their attitude is if you want it, you pay for it.

Their attitude has always been "If you want one format, you can buy that one at discount. If you want more than one format buy the pack now, or upgrade to it".

There's nothing that requires an olive branch there. Its quite clear.

These "Other Versions" are for a minority of users who'd actually want AU, VST for mac and RTAS etc, i'd go as far as to say most are windows users who just want the 64bit version of the existing plug-ins.

Of course you'd go that far. Making any assertion which supports your opinion makes it true, doesnt it?

When pretty much every other single company offers a free update to the 64bit version when it's availible, I dunno why Ohmforce think they are so special they can charge for it.

They dont charge for it if you have the Pack license. If you got the discounted Single License version, though, then you were clearly warned that any change in format needs would require an upgrade to the Pack. This is basically buyer's remorse over that $20 discount.

[whyterabbyt]

yet unlike pretty much every other developer you discount €20 for just one version

FTFY.

How is that a fix ? Try not to misquote me next time.

Its a fix for your misrepresentation of the facts. Try not to need corrective misqouting.

They are charging €20 for the same plug-in in 64bit. Now show me a list of dev's who do that and i'll stand corrected.

No, they gave you a €20 discount, and warned you that if you needed the same plug-in in a different format, you'd need to pay that €20 to get all formats.

No other dev I know of gives you that €20 discount. Show me a list of dev's who'll give you a single-format discount then let you have a second format free, and I'll stand corrected.

[AKJ]

there are many developpers who do not need to give that "discount" since they have set the price right from the beginning.

[whyterabbyt]

there are many developpers who do not need to give that "discount" since they have set the price right from the beginning.

Well, that's making the assumption that OhmForce needed to in the first place themselves. Perhaps they just did it to be generous. Or, as I suspect, because people pressured them to by saying they'd never need to use more than one format.

there are many developers who do not 'need' to give a 50% education "discount" or bundle discounts either. And many of them dont.

But of course, this is KVR where no good deed goes unpunished.

[AKJ]

I clearly said that simply recompiling will just work in theory and that in practice it might be a little work. but definately less than a completely different plugin format.

How is it definately less? You don't seem to know the first thing about software development so how can you make that statement.

In theory all things are possible, except possibly you being informed or correct.

However, in practise, if you've written code specifically for 32-bit and then need to migrate it to 64-bit, it will take some effort. Possibly more than a wrapper/format change. There is some argument about foresight when you code, but when deadlines, and customers, are looming you sometimes can't think ahead and just need to get it done.

you are absolutely right. if they need more (or even the same time) to do a 64 bit version as compared to a different plugin format within the same word length then there is something wrong with their coding framwork. I do not know why I should pay the misorganization of their code base (if it true what you state).

edit: that there are 64 bit OS and hosts is a fact for many, many years. If you do not take that into account while developing code, it is just stupidity.

[LeVzi]

Erm, no. Giving someone the rationale they refuse to accept isnt 'whining', its 'explaining.' But nice try.

But you didn't do that, you are whining about whining. Dress it up anyway you want.

'Swap'? You mean 'well in practice, get the new one free and keep the old one' dont you?

You accusing me that i'd keep an unlicensed plug-in, bascially accusing me of pirating it. That's pretty pathetic imo.

Their attitude has always been "If you want one format, you can buy that one at discount. If you want more than one format buy the pack now, or upgrade to it".

Is it a new format ? I find 64bit versions of one specific type be it windows vst or protools RTAS not a new format at all.

There's nothing that requires an olive branch there. Its quite clear.

Maybe olive branch was a bad metaphor, a gesture of goodwill for current plug-in owners would have been more appropriate.

Of course you'd go that far. Making any assertion which supports your opinion makes it true, doesnt it?

Pretty much same applies to anything you say right ? After all, anything said is pretty subjective. Although I'll doubt you'd see it that way.

They dont charge for it if you have the Pack license. If you got the discounted Single License version, though, then you were clearly warned that any change in format needs would require an upgrade to the Pack. This is basically buyer's remorse over that $20 discount.

I agree, if I wanted to swap from VST to AU or RTAS then I am in effect changing format. Going from 32 bit to 64 bit but still using VST for windows, imho, isn't changing a format. But then that is a matter for debate.

Either way, maybe I am just used to developers such as D16 who recently updated most of their plug-ins to 64bit, amongst other devs, releasing 64bit updates free to current users.

(multi quoting may look nice, but fk me it's boring.)

[LeVzi]

yet unlike pretty much every other developer you discount €20 for just one version

FTFY.

How is that a fix ? Try not to misquote me next time.

Its a fix for your misrepresentation of the facts. Try not to need corrective misqouting.

They are charging €20 for the same plug-in in 64bit. Now show me a list of dev's who do that and i'll stand corrected.

No, they gave you a €20 discount, and warned you that if you needed the same plug-in in a different format, you'd need to pay that €20 to get all formats.

No other dev I know of gives you that €20 discount. Show me a list of dev's who'll give you a single-format discount then let you have a second format free, and I'll stand corrected.

I paid for VST for Windows. I don't consider 32bit and 64bit different formats. Same format, different bit range. I think that's the real issue here.

[whyterabbyt]

But you didn't do that, you are whining about whining. Dress it up anyway you want.

Couldnt be further from the truth. Im laughing at it. Not you, to reassure you, but the 'usual suspects'...

You accusing me that i'd keep an unlicensed plug-in, bascially accusing me of pirating it.

Yep. Where 'you' would be plural and 'a sizeable enough contingent of the people who'd be elegible'

That's pretty pathetic imo

.

Realism is pathetic? Interesting. Its definitely cynical, but I think its valid.

Is it a new format ? I find 64bit versions of one specific type be it windows vst or protools RTAS not a new format at all.

I realise that. But its not really about that, is it?

Pretty much same applies to anything you say right ? After all, anything said is pretty subjective. Although I'll doubt you'd see it that way.

Actually I agree. Its your subjective opinion that you're having to pay for an 'upgrade' rather than you got a 'discount'.
I suspect Ohmforce's intention was effectively 'discount' though. And its their call.

I agree, if I wanted to swap from VST to AU or RTAS then I am in effect changing format. Going from 32 bit to 64 bit but still using VST for windows, imho, isn't changing a format. But then that is a matter for debate.

Either way, maybe I am just used to developers such as D16 who recently updated most of their plug-ins to 64bit, amongst other devs, releasing 64bit updates free to current users.

Yes, other companies do thigns differently. But this isnt news for Ohmforce.

If you own the pack, the UB versions are free. If you own a single license, cross-grade / upgrade options are available.

Universal Binary was a change in OS dynamic library format, not the actual plugin/API format. Exactly the same as 64 bit is.

(multi quoting may look nice, but fk me it's boring.)

Apologies, but I find it easier to keep stuff in context.

[khanyz]

you are absolutely right. if they need more (or even the same time) to do a 64 bit version as compared to a different plugin format within the same word length then there is something wrong with their coding framwork. I do not know why I should pay the misorganization of their code base (if it true what you state).

edit: that there are 64 bit OS and hosts is a fact for many, many years. If you do not take that into account while developing code, it is just stupidity.

No, again you show your ignorance. The timeframe for any development is not that simple estimated. How can you say there is anything wrong with the framework, or the codebase is badly organised? You don't have enough information. With my dev eye, I see that's it's been stable and efficient for years, so why change it and give yourself more headaches than you get from dumb customers.

As for the "years" since the introduction of 64-bit OS's. I started coding on them in 1995, for industrial and production use. So where were the 64-bit plugins then?

Making the transition from 32-bit to 64-bit is a commercial decision, and the timing is based upon when the wider market will accept them. Doing it during the early stages, for early adopters, isn't always viable since the standards may change and the returns won't always justify it.

Even today, I would say that 32-bit is dominant, with 64-bit taking over at an accelerated rate. It's entirely up to the dev to decide when to change focus and when to update existing sofware.