The All In One Source Bitwig Information & Speculation Thread

[hibidy]

Closed betas are much more controlled than public ones.
Just have a look at this thread and imagine half of the posts here would have been support mails.

Public betas are more useful to check if an already feature complete product runs on a variety of different systems, but are useless during the actual developement phase, at least in my experience.

Cheers
Dennis

E gads!

You guys are not seeing the big picture.

Still, it is what it is. It'll be ready when it's ready

In the meantime.........

[tooneba]

Maybe their small team is busy trying to get the product to release condition?

But it won't explain why they didn't do public beta. How could devs debug on hundreds of different environments themselves without having a big parent company like Yamaha for steinberg. Even with that, software came out with bugs... They must have sufficient resource to do...

They are free to choose whatever development method they wish and do not owe you an explanation.

They don't owe as well as I don't owe for not posing my assumption.

[hibidy]

Agreed. It's preposterous to assume that a small number of followers and a some beta testers are the perceived market share.

SERIOUSLY one of my biggest beefs. The smugness.

[tooneba]

but are useless during the actual developement phase, at least in my experience.

Cheers
Dennis

Isn't it suppose to be released in a few weeks? Still you call it 'during actual development?'...

I agree with Dennis...

Not many hosts do public betas and many of the people who have participated in Live's past public betas have complained about how little feedback they got from Ableton, how haphazard the beta process seemed. Now they are moving away from how they used to do it (and it works better)

In big public betas, most of the people just want to check the stuff out, make crappy or sloppy bug reports, don't know the software well so make mistakes, false reports, etc. There are endless feature requests, complaints, user errors and so on.

I suspect it would have been suicide for Bitwig to have a public beta.

I think it won't make difference. It just postpones bug report and complains after the release. Ableton learned this through the initial immatured 8 release, bunch of complain and years of fixing. Cubase have been released with bugs even with their controlled debug process and with sufficient resources. Smaller company tring to do same things like 'Live 8' or 'Cubase'?... It's ok everyone want and are trying to do same way as big company like Apple is doing for ther OS, but even with their plenty of debug their QC overlooked the fatal auto-data-loss of the external drive bug. Who wants another 'initial release Live 8'?

[hibidy]

If we are GOING to get back to THIS perception, then reality is that ONLY a released version is going to gain respect.

OR, we can keep down the road of non-releasal and speculate.

To assume otherwise is just silly.

[Tronam]

Isn't it suppose to be released in a few weeks? Still you call it 'during actual development?'...

I think it won't make difference. It just postpones bug report and complains after the release. Ableton learned this through the initial immatured 8 release, bunch of complain and years of fixing. Cubase have been released with bugs even with their controlled debug process and with sufficient resources. Smaller company tring to do same things like 'Live 8' or 'Cubase'?... It's ok everyone want and are trying to do same way as big company like Apple is doing for ther OS, but even with their plenty of debug their QC overlooked the fatal auto-data-loss of the external drive bug. Who wants another 'initial release Live 8'?

* It won't make a difference? What kind of assumption is that? If they're consistently squashing bugs up until final release then it certainly will make a difference. Every single bug represents a potentially avoided negative first impression.
* No official release date has been published or promised and they can take as long as they like to work on BWS until they deem it feature complete enough for a 1.0 release.
* All "timelines" are conjecture, so you'd probably save yourself some worry by forgetting about them. Without a track record of releases behind them, how can they possibly predict exactly where the goal line is going to be? Once the core architecture is finished, then maybe release timelines will become more predictable in the future.
* It should be obvious by now that they would rather receive and sort through a smaller number of useful bug/feature reports from sincere beta testers as opposed to a million random curious users who've never seen the program before. I doubt there's even a user's manual yet. Can't you appreciate the administrative headache a public beta would be to manage for a product that's still in development? Especially for such a small company.
* At least they lifted the NDA on the beta for discussion, so you can rest easy knowing it's a real product and not the fictitious neverware DAW that some folks kept harping about in the early days of this thread.

[tooneba]

* It won't make a difference? What kind of assumption is that? If they're consistently squashing bugs up until final release then it certainly will make a difference. Every single bug represents a potentially avoided negative first impression.

Assumtion? No I just illustrated with some example. History shows. Initial Live8, Cubase, Mavericks.

* No official release date has been published or promised and they can take as long as they like to work on BWS until they deem it feature complete enough for a 1.0 release.

We are talking about the public beta of the software supposed to be released 'soon'. At least beta which are hyped by their official email notification.

* All "timelines" are conjecture, so you'd probably save yourself some worry by forgetting about them. Without a track record of releases behind them, how can they possibly predict exactly where the goal line is going to be? Once the core architecture is finished, then maybe release timelines will become more predictable in the future.

I'm not worrying. I'm just curious why they don't show some updates if they bother to allow closed beta tester speak and upload picture to public forum.　It won't hurt them to update poeple as they already sent subscribers "beta has been started" kind of email more than a year ago.

* It should be obvious by now that they would rather receive and sort through a smaller number of useful bug/feature reports from sincere beta testers as opposed to a million random curious users who've never seen the program before. I doubt there's even a user's manual yet. Can't you appreciate the administrative headache a public beta would be to manage for a product that's still in development? Especially for such a small company.

You understood they are small company. So do you understood what I wanted to tell where I illustrated with initial Live 8, cubase and Mavericks?

* At least they lifted the NDA on the beta for discussion, so you can rest easy knowing it's a real product and not the fictitious neverware DAW that some folks kept harping about in the early days of this thread.

Ya, then update their subscriber. That's what I'm talking about.

[pdxindy]

I agree with Dennis...

Not many hosts do public betas and many of the people who have participated in Live's past public betas have complained about how little feedback they got from Ableton, how haphazard the beta process seemed. Now they are moving away from how they used to do it (and it works better)

In big public betas, most of the people just want to check the stuff out, make crappy or sloppy bug reports, don't know the software well so make mistakes, false reports, etc. There are endless feature requests, complaints, user errors and so on.

I suspect it would have been suicide for Bitwig to have a public beta.

I think it won't make difference. It just postpones bug report and complains after the release. Ableton learned this through the initial immatured 8 release, bunch of complain and years of fixing. Cubase have been released with bugs even with their controlled debug process and with sufficient resources. Smaller company tring to do same things like 'Live 8' or 'Cubase'?... It's ok everyone want and are trying to do same way as big company like Apple is doing for ther OS, but even with their plenty of debug their QC overlooked the fatal auto-data-loss of the external drive bug. Who wants another 'initial release Live 8'?

Ableton Live 8 had a public beta... if that is your argument for Bitwig to have one, then you prove the opposite...

[ObsoleteAcc99]

[DELETED]

[Tronam]

I just read randomly that apparently on their facebook page release date is set at December 31

"I'm an optimist, but I'm an optimist who takes his raincoat." ~ Harold Wilson

[ObsoleteAcc99]

[DELETED]

[pdxindy]

I believe it also said 11.59.59 pm

If it comes out 10 minutes later someone will be mad that it shipped a year late!

[tooneba]

I think it won't make difference. It just postpones bug report and complains after the release. Ableton learned this through the initial immatured 8 release, bunch of complain and years of fixing. Cubase have been released with bugs even with their controlled debug process and with sufficient resources. Smaller company tring to do same things like 'Live 8' or 'Cubase'?... It's ok everyone want and are trying to do same way as big company like Apple is doing for ther OS, but even with their plenty of debug their QC overlooked the fatal auto-data-loss of the external drive bug. Who wants another 'initial release Live 8'?

Ableton Live 8 had a public beta... if that is your argument for Bitwig to have one, then you prove the opposite...

Sry, my remember wasn't correct. Then it seems even worse. They even lose a method to aware crutial bug by checking over 30 pages bug report thread before the release... I just want to get stable one and from sincere company if I will buy. ATM the way they treat email subscribers is meh.

[ZenPunkHippy]

Sry, my remember wasn't correct. Then it seems even worse. They even lose a method to aware crutial bug by checking over 30 pages bug report thread before the release

There is absolutely zero benefit in having a team of 20 or 100 public beta testers who don't report proper bugs (full steps to 100% reproducibility, crash logs). What's worse, though, is that more beta testers means it more likely the software ends up on some warez site prior to release.

If you remember what happened with D-16 and LuSH-101 beta: a warez leak delayed the release for years.

Peace,
Andy.

[ThomasHelzle]

Will this native modulation system be open for third party developers? like an available sourcecode or format they could port their plugins to, in order to make use of it?

i think about using a third party plugin as soundgenerator but making all the parameters of it available in the modular system in the background, which then could be rearranged or maybe even combined with other instruments.

I guess what you say is basically what the modular system, the node view, will make available in Version 2.
AFAIK there will be a SDK for third parties to implement nodes for that system and I would guess you can then create your own along the same principles as the internal devices.

You can do what you say already in most nodal hosts, especially Usine comes to mind, where each parameter is available on nodes as inputs and/or outputs to be modulated as floating point values, so no midi restrictions.
In Usine you also have a C++ SDK, for instance I programmed a very flexible quasi-random modulator with it:
http://www.design4audio.de/home/aon-random/
There's also scripting for less demanding things.

I don't know exactly how Bitwigs modular system will compare to that, since it's only accessible in their internal builds, not in the betas.

But I find it helpful to keep the underlying modular structure in mind since it helps understand how some thing work.
If you build a device chain, in the background it's structures are created as nodes in the modular system.

Cheers,

Tom