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

[_TIP_]

I do respect your opinion and thought I'd made that clear (but perhaps not well enough), but I also thought 'who do you think you are' to speak for everyone, which is how it came across to me. If that was not your intention then fine, let's agree to disagree and move on

The way you think is like: everyone is representing everyone on KVR forum so let's argue if someone has different opinion than me... Please understand that everyone speaks for himself. As i said before i speak for my self and "possibly" other users that didn't like the latest updates of falcon, NOT ALL KVR users, including you...
Anyway, I have better things to do than posting here all day, sorry if I accidentally offend you, have a nice day

[EvilDragon]

Sound libraries are most likely NOT useless, and is actually the best way to garner market share. And adding effects helps in bettering those sound libraries. UVI's tactics are perfectly fine.

It's been mentioned before that multicore is not an easy task because of sheer modularity available in Falcon, so I wouldn't hold my breath in seeing it any time soon... Ditto FM from another osc, not as easy as it seems that it can just be added in a point update (and this was mentioned somewhere by otristan, too IIRC).

[RobGee]

Well personally I'm very happy with the last few updates, the enhancements to the Xpander filters, dual delay and stretch oscillator, new phaser filter/effect, diode clipper, thorus and the rotary effects. All pretty kick ass additions in my opinion and very welcome free updates, keep up the good work UVI.

[Wavegem]

My big issue is that I have to run Falcon on another computer and slave it with Vienna. I have a 6 core 3.3 and it runs pretty good without running anything else. If I make a complex patch with multiple parts, sequences, automation, BIG tax. I have to constantly worry about CPU usage. Many other plugins can run 10 or more instances, Falcon is not the case.

[c_voltage]

The my main request for Falcon that i would do requested (if i would do requested ) this is a some option in preferences for change resolution of quality for whole engine (level of aliasing?), for reduce cpu usage when it need (and where not need precision quality).

The second big request this is different waveforms in FM generator (besides sinewave), that would be really cool. (As i understand, this is not very difficult to implement technically ? Well, by logic. I can wrong ofcourse.)

This is in my opinion two things to be happy with Falcon for long time .

[liv]

I find it somewhat easy to generate hanging notes in Falcon SA (depending on patch). Is there a panic button somewhere or maybe a workaround with same result that could solve this, instead of having to close and relaunch?

[liv]

The stop button at the upper right is a panic button.

A thread search later. Thanks.

[liv]

How about a knob for plus/minus on the comb filter instead of menu?

[SLiC]

Sound libraries are most likely NOT useless, and is actually the best way to garner market share. And adding effects helps in bettering those sound libraries. UVI's tactics are perfectly fine.

It's been mentioned before that multicore is not an easy task because of sheer modularity available in Falcon, so I wouldn't hold my breath in seeing it any time soon... Ditto FM from another osc, not as easy as it seems that it can just be added in a point update (and this was mentioned somewhere by otristan, too IIRC).

Halion 6 is arguably even more modular and has very good multi-core support....so there is hope.

[EvilDragon]

It's actually quite a bit less modular than Falcon, if I'm understanding what the manual says. You have a fixed number of modulators: envelopes (4), LFOs (2), step sequencer (1) (you can add more as monophonic MIDI ones, but still beside the point, Falcon is LIMITLESS in number of modulators it can have!), a fixed filter in the zone structure (can add almost all effects at voice level in Falcon pre and post filter, don't even need to have a filter per zone if you don't want to), etc etc.


So having a pretty fixed structure of a single voice makes it much easier to spread voice loads over multicores, compared to what Falcon can do.

[liv]

I've managed to minimise the env mod section and can't seem to get it back to show the actual envelope parameters. (see pic).
How do you get it back to visible state/size?

[liv]

I've managed to minimise the env mod section and can't seem to get it back to show the actual envelope parameters. (see pic).
How do you get it back to visible state/size?

Nevermind. Found it far right.

[liv]

Composed this yesterday. All Falcon.

Please enjoy.

https://soundcloud.com/leap-into-the-void/ocean-purity

[SLiC]

It's actually quite a bit less modular than Falcon, if I'm understanding what the manual says. You have a fixed number of modulators: envelopes (4), LFOs (2), step sequencer (1) (you can add more as monophonic MIDI ones, but still beside the point, Falcon is LIMITLESS in number of modulators it can have!), a fixed filter in the zone structure (can add almost all effects at voice level in Falcon pre and post filter, don't even need to have a filter per zone if you don't want to), etc etc.


So having a pretty fixed structure of a single voice makes it much easier to spread voice loads over multicores, compared to what Falcon can do.

Yes, I own both Falcon and Halion 6 (although still wrapping my head around Halion!) I think 'limitless' is a bit misleading, as CPU is a limit and also and I cant see myself needing more looping envelopes, LFO's, Step Sequencers, Flexiphraser etc. 'per zone' (as you can have as many zones as you like you can layer and build up movement with duplicate layers with different modulation if you really need it..and even decide which and how many cores to use)

Personally I would rather have a 'limited' Halion be able to actually run incredibly complex layered patches spread across my 8 cores as apposed Falcon straining on one core with just a few notes on a complex patch- that is not 'limitless' and IMHO multicore optimisation needs to be designed in to the structure of instruments such as this, even if that imposes limits!

[Cinebient]

It's actually quite a bit less modular than Falcon, if I'm understanding what the manual says. You have a fixed number of modulators: envelopes (4), LFOs (2), step sequencer (1) (you can add more as monophonic MIDI ones, but still beside the point, Falcon is LIMITLESS in number of modulators it can have!), a fixed filter in the zone structure (can add almost all effects at voice level in Falcon pre and post filter, don't even need to have a filter per zone if you don't want to), etc etc.


So having a pretty fixed structure of a single voice makes it much easier to spread voice loads over multicores, compared to what Falcon can do.

Yes, I own both Falcon and Halion 6 (although still wrapping my head around Halion!) I think 'limitless' is a bit misleading, as CPU is a limit and also and I cant see myself needing more looping envelopes, LFO's, Step Sequencers, Flexiphraser etc. 'per zone' (as you can have as many zones as you like you can layer and build up movement with duplicate layers with different modulation if you really need it..and even decide which and how many cores to use)

Personally I would rather have a 'limited' Halion be able to actually run incredibly complex layered patches spread across my 8 cores as apposed Falcon straining on one core with just a few notes on a complex patch- that is not 'limitless' and IMHO multicore optimisation needs to be designed in to the structure of instruments such as this, even if that imposes limits!

+1 (yes, it´s this time again)