Steinberg: No more VST2 Development
-
- KVRAF
- 1607 posts since 12 Apr, 2002
Somehow I think that FL being tied to Windows/Delphi to one or another extent doesn't necessarily mean the SDK is. IIRC the SDK is just one or several C++ headers, not sure how much bound to Windows API.
-
- KVRAF
- 4735 posts since 18 Jul, 2002 from London, UK
Modern and WRONG for a plug-in API - which exists to provide connectivity (like MIDI, like 1/4in jacks) while being as agnostic as possible about what's being connected to what, not dictate the internal architecture of plug-in code according to a particular software engineering flavour-of-the-month.GMPI was it. Unfortunately, it was controversial because it used modern programming techniques (like separation of processor and controller). This is unfamiliar and required a learning curve from people familiar with VST2.
Is it good practice to separate those things within the plug-in? In many cases, sure. But enforcing it at host<->plug-in interface level is just bad design. Wrong place for it.
VST3 isn't necessarily a bad design for a host's internal format, but as a format designed to connect many different plug-ins and hosts, which may be built on different architectural and musical concepts, it's a massive crock of fail.
Think it's time I spoke to a good lawyer about whether it's possible to make an SDK that's 95% or 100% binary-compatible with VST2.x without infringing copyright.
This account is dormant, I am no longer employed by FXpansion / ROLI.
Find me on LinkedIn or elsewhere if you need to get in touch.
Find me on LinkedIn or elsewhere if you need to get in touch.
-
- KVRAF
- 2393 posts since 28 Mar, 2005
As long as you're in Europe, you're safe.Angus_FX wrote: Think it's time I spoke to a good lawyer about whether it's possible to make an SDK that's 95% or 100% binary-compatible with VST2.x without infringing copyright.
Reverse engineering is legal for inter operability.
Still you can't copy the SDK headers, however you can be binary compatible.
-
- KVRist
- 88 posts since 20 Nov, 2009
The VST3 SDK contains the VST2 files (aeffect, aeffeditor, audioeffect, vstpluginmain etc.), so IMHO there is no need for any reverse engineering or open source VST2 compatible SDK.
As long as it is possible to get the official VST2 files why should anyone use a (only probably, as all software has bugs) 100% compatible SDK?
As long as it is possible to get the official VST2 files why should anyone use a (only probably, as all software has bugs) 100% compatible SDK?
-
- KVRAF
- 8388 posts since 11 Apr, 2003 from back on the hillside again - but now with a garden!
- KVRist
- 165 posts since 18 Jan, 2012
[Mod edit: If you want to rephrase the deleted portions of this post without the abuse, go ahead. Please don't post any more things like that.]
smoothing.............oh ffs..............
smoothing.............oh ffs..............
- KVRAF
- 2554 posts since 4 Sep, 2006 from 127.0.0.1
dude relaxfluxmind wrote:...
there are single-person devs here, can't compare them to the big companies
It doesn't matter how it sounds..
..as long as it has BASS and it's LOUD!
irc.libera.chat >>> #kvr
..as long as it has BASS and it's LOUD!
irc.libera.chat >>> #kvr
-
- KVRian
- 877 posts since 24 Jun, 2002 from Berlin
sure it's been said already, but some basic smoothing is required for most algorithm parameters anyway, otherwise you could make all sorts of glitches with your sample accurate automation. Just because VST3 supports sample accurate parameter changes, it doesn't mean that Waves or other devs actually implement it. Saying that it's nice to have the option.fluxmind wrote: smoothing.............oh ffs..............
-
- KVRAF
- 1940 posts since 16 Aug, 2004 from Vienna, Austria
- KVRist
- 165 posts since 18 Jan, 2012
Sample accurate automation, CPU "savings", no hassle side-chaining makes it greater than by now archaic Vst2, with **** load of workarounds even some DAWs itself provide workarounds for it lol, like cpu "preservation" or whatever...concerning some DAWs, that's where unwillingness to adapt vst3 support stems from, because they've implemented too many "workarounds" and now they feel as if they were "cheated" by Steinberg lol that's it.arakula wrote:The bottom line is that you invested in VST3 PlugIns so VST3's great. Correct?fluxmind wrote:blah blah blah
-
AdmiralQuality AdmiralQuality https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=83902
- Banned
- 6657 posts since 10 Oct, 2005 from Toronto, Canada
fluxmind wrote:Sample accurate automation, CPU "savings", no hassle side-chaining makes it greater than by now archaic Vst2, with **** load of workarounds even some DAWs itself provide workarounds for it lol, like cpu "preservation" or whatever...concerning some DAWs, that's where unwillingness to adapt vst3 support stems from, because they've implemented too many "workarounds" and now they feel as if they were "cheated" by Steinberg lol that's it.arakula wrote:The bottom line is that you invested in VST3 PlugIns so VST3's great. Correct?fluxmind wrote:blah blah blah
Sounds like somebody's been drinking Steinberg's Kool-Aid.
Are you a developer fluxmind, or did you just come into this board to insult developers and tell us our business based on a bunch of marketing drivel you chose to take as gospel? You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. "CPU Savings"?
-
- KVRAF
- 2690 posts since 19 Dec, 2010 from North America
AdmiralQuality wrote:fluxmind wrote:Sample accurate automation, CPU "savings", no hassle side-chaining makes it greater than by now archaic Vst2, with **** load of workarounds even some DAWs itself provide workarounds for it lol, like cpu "preservation" or whatever...concerning some DAWs, that's where unwillingness to adapt vst3 support stems from, because they've implemented too many "workarounds" and now they feel as if they were "cheated" by Steinberg lol that's it.arakula wrote:The bottom line is that you invested in VST3 PlugIns so VST3's great. Correct?fluxmind wrote:blah blah blah
Sounds like somebody's been drinking Steinberg's Kool-Aid.
Are you a developer fluxmind, or did you just come into this board to insult developers and tell us our business based on a bunch of marketing drivel you chose to take as gospel? You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. "CPU Savings"?
This is going to be good.
One Synth Challenge: https://sites.google.com/site/kvrosc/about
- KVRist
- 165 posts since 18 Jan, 2012
No, it won't, I'm a sociopath, it's impossible to bait me, I roam at will.bjporter wrote: This is going to be good.
VST3 FTW, keep on whining, I've seen some happy "sandwiched" ones already, money talks-people listen, so as far as vst3 goes, money talks louder there, so soon you'll all be "vst3whiched" lol and goodbye.
-
- KVRAF
- 2690 posts since 19 Dec, 2010 from North America
I really am genuinely interested in a intellectual discussion... not mocking anyone... this is really exciting, please continue!fluxmind wrote:No, it won't, I'm a sociopath, it's impossible to bait me, I roam at will.bjporter wrote: This is going to be good.
VST3 FTW, keep on whining, I've seen some happy "sandwiched" ones already, money talks-people listen, so as far as vst3 goes, money talks louder there, so soon you'll all be "vst3whiched" lol and goodbye.
One Synth Challenge: https://sites.google.com/site/kvrosc/about
-
AdmiralQuality AdmiralQuality https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=83902
- Banned
- 6657 posts since 10 Oct, 2005 from Toronto, Canada
Admins, can we do something with this self-admitted troll?fluxmind wrote:No, it won't, I'm a sociopath, it's impossible to bait me, I roam at will.bjporter wrote: This is going to be good.
VST3 FTW, keep on whining, I've seen some happy "sandwiched" ones already, money talks-people listen, so as far as vst3 goes, money talks louder there, so soon you'll all be "vst3whiched" lol and goodbye.
We deal in facts here in the development board, fluxmind. Your illiterate and ill-informed comments mean nothing to us who actually DO this work. But you are wasting space and detracting from the topic, so please f**k off.