UVI Falcon - v4 = 2026 released - rumors, ads, praise, kindergarden, auto-sampling and off-topic inside!

[Sampleconstruct]

I see often mentions about CPU hug in Falcon, and i start to worry. Tell please if anyone test it via compare with MF3, on the same standart oscillators - analog\fm\wavetable (let no consider ircam generators), and with increased unisson values in osc - then Falcon will be much cpu consume than MF3 or will the same % result?
Just i ask because planned too to catch upgrade from MF3, so, upgrade discount ending soon, i am going to do it in next week. MF3 i found quite usable in CPU usage sense, i.e. he satisfies me in this.

(BTW still not available Falcon demo version ? although i not planned testing before upgrade because I was convinced that it is the same as MF3, but as already said, reports about cpu are forced to take into account)

The granulators have been optimized CPU wise, the new modules have no comparison (wavetable/pluck synth/multi-granular) as they were not present in M5, Falcon overall uses less CPU compared to M5, if you layer many modules with unison voices etc. it will of course be more CPU intense than a simple synth patch, but you knew that already.

[c_voltage]

I see often mentions about CPU hug in Falcon, and i start to worry. Tell please if anyone test it via compare with MF3, on the same standart oscillators - analog\fm\wavetable (let no consider ircam generators), and with increased unisson values in osc - then Falcon will be much cpu consume than MF3 or will the same % result?
Just i ask because planned too to catch upgrade from MF3, so, upgrade discount ending soon, i am going to do it in next week. MF3 i found quite usable in CPU usage sense, i.e. he satisfies me in this.

(BTW still not available Falcon demo version ? although i not planned testing before upgrade because I was convinced that it is the same as MF3, but as already said, reports about cpu are forced to take into account)

The granulators have been optimized CPU wise, the new modules have no comparison (wavetable/pluck synth/multi-granular) as they were not present in M5, Falcon overall uses less CPU compared to M5, if you layer many modules with unison voices etc. it will of course be more CPU intense than a simple synth patch, but you knew that already.

Simon thank for reply, but ofcourse i meant compare exactly with oscilators which existing in both synths, (although new generators ofcourse looks promising ). Well, if everything is not so bad, then strange, why complaints (about cpu). I have quite old processor QuadCore, and i could make full ambient track inside one MF3 instance (very convenient mixer btw), via use one ircam, pair sampler osc's and couple analog\FM osc's (with increased unisson). Well and all this with extensive modulation ofcourse. And it was slightly more than half of the CPU - that is not a lot for such a stack, strange.

[Sampleconstruct]

I don't see many complaints about Falcon's CPU, what are you referring to? In this thread it's mainly been a single poster complaining about CPU.

[c_voltage]

Added: even now i make quick test in MF3 - 1 ircam, 2 simple samplers, 1 analog, 1 analog stack, 1 fm, 1 wavetable osc (with unisson 4) - all in one layer. Added different samples to samplers and select different presets in osc's. Set global release to maximum, and press 3 note chord repeatedly - its show about 43% for one cpu core (of 4). I think it's quite good result. (At least via compare with some modern softsynths cpu eating).
The only thing - ircam occasionally caused average size spikes.
Will interesting to be compared with a subject ).

[c_voltage]

I don't see many complaints about Falcon's CPU, what are you referring to? In this thread it's mainly been a single poster complaining about CPU.

Well, then it just so seemed to me (I hope so ). I not been some time in the topic and read just the last couple of pages.

[EvilDragon]

I do think that having a way to add slew to a modulation source would be a great feature though, a la Kontakt.

Oh yes, here's a +1 from me for this, too. It makes a lot of sense to have this directly on the modulation strip!

[c_voltage]

Btw really - there is any idea why no demoversion for falcon ? I thought it was the specificity of the initial release stage. Well, why there is demoversion for the same sparkverb for example. No, its not critical ofcourse, but what's the catch, just wondering.

[SJ_Digriz]

Updated to 1.06, and now Falcon crashes when clicking on Soundbanks in the folder browser on the right hand side. Anyone else?

EDIT: crashes as plugin too.

[jdoo]

Updated to 1.06, and now Falcon crashes when clicking on Soundbanks in the folder browser on the right hand side. Anyone else?

EDIT: crashes as plugin too.

Any chance you installed 1.06 that you downloaded last week? UVI posted another 1.06 version that doesnt have those problems a couple of days ago.

[TwoToneshuzz]

I see often mentions about CPU hug in Falcon, and i start to worry. Tell please if anyone test it via compare with MF3, on the same standart oscillators - analog\fm\wavetable (let no consider ircam samplers), and with increased unisson values in osc - then Falcon will be much cpu consume than MF3 or will the same % result?
Just i ask because planned too to catch upgrade from MF3, so, upgrade discount ending soon, i am going to do it in next week. MF3 i found quite usable in CPU usage sense, i.e. he satisfies me in this.

(BTW still not available Falcon demo version ? although i not planned testing before upgrade because I was convinced that it is the same as MF3, but as already said, reports about cpu are forced to take into account)

I've been using it for about a week or so now, both with Simon Stockhausens Air presets and som UVi things like the Retro Organ Suite, CS-M synth and everything seem normal enough.. So no I don't think it uses more CPU power than Mach V 3.2

[c_voltage]

I see often mentions about CPU hug in Falcon, and i start to worry. Tell please if anyone test it via compare with MF3, on the same standart oscillators - analog\fm\wavetable (let no consider ircam samplers), and with increased unisson values in osc - then Falcon will be much cpu consume than MF3 or will the same % result?
Just i ask because planned too to catch upgrade from MF3, so, upgrade discount ending soon, i am going to do it in next week. MF3 i found quite usable in CPU usage sense, i.e. he satisfies me in this.

(BTW still not available Falcon demo version ? although i not planned testing before upgrade because I was convinced that it is the same as MF3, but as already said, reports about cpu are forced to take into account)

I've been using it for about a week or so now, both with Simon Stockhausens Air presets and som UVi things like the Retro Organ Suite, CS-M synth and everything seem normal enough.. So no I don't think it uses more CPU power than Mach V 3.2

Then good, thank for reply ).

[SJ_Digriz]

Updated to 1.06, and now Falcon crashes when clicking on Soundbanks in the folder browser on the right hand side. Anyone else?

EDIT: crashes as plugin too.

Any chance you installed 1.06 that you downloaded last week? UVI posted another 1.06 version that doesnt have those problems a couple of days ago.

Possible. Thanks I'll redowloas

[newuser2014]

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/170 ... etable.zip

I used this simple wavetable to get a better understanding of Phase Distortion modes.

[asseca]

Updated to 1.06, and now Falcon crashes when clicking on Soundbanks in the folder browser on the right hand side. Anyone else?

Try to re-download.
Falcon 1.0.6 has been re-uploaded on 22 January (containing a hotfix for that bug).

[Musical Gym]

Please make the Pace installer a selectable option rather than having it run automatically each time we install a new version; it's tedious always having to cancel the Pace portion of the installer.