XHip--Please finish your synth!!
-
- Beware the Quoth
- 35476 posts since 4 Sep, 2001 from R'lyeh Oceanic Amusement Park and Funfair
always with dem negative waves, moriarty....eidenk wrote:Woof, woof.
An idiot on Set Theory:
"In some cases there is an object called red that contains everything that is red. In much the same way a pot is a plate."
"In some cases there is an object called red that contains everything that is red. In much the same way a pot is a plate."
-
- KVRist
- 175 posts since 1 Mar, 2003
aciddose wrote:quote of this?
VST SDK wrote: virtual long getCurrentProcessLevel ();
Returns the hosts's process level. A plug is like a black box processing some audio coming in on some inputs (if any) and going out of some outputs (if any). This may be used to do offline or real-time processing, and sometimes it may be desirable to know the current context.
Sorry but that's not how I see it. You are claiming that anything a Steinberg host does is the standard by which anyone shd abide (unless it is in clear violation of the SDK), and called Sonar's behavior buggy because of that. I maintain that any VST implementation that plays by the rules laid down--doesn't violate the SDK--is a valid one. Quite apart from the fact that you can't even know for certain whether Steinberg hosts always sort their events--who says there aren't particular cases in which they don't? There's no telling unless you disassemble Cubase--, Steinberg hosts are just one possible implementation of the VST interface.yes, and whyterabbyt is as usual completely lacking a common sense interpretation of what i've said.
If your plugin doesn't work correctly because of certain assumptions *you* made about smt that's not specified in the SDK, it's just plain your fault.
-- dj!
-
- KVRAF
- 12615 posts since 7 Dec, 2004
"If your plugin doesn't work correctly because of certain assumptions *you* made about smt that's not specified in the SDK, it's just plain your fault. "
oh, except for every other host out there?
the fact is that sonar is buggy. it should be fixed. also i'm not 'lazy', i'm producing something for free here. is sonar free? it sounds like the authors of sonar are lazy. i understand the exact reasoning for sending out-of-order events and it is to save on having to send data between threads and then sort it as should be done. the reason the authors of sonar did not implement things the way i describe is because they are lazy, they took a poorly designed shortcut instead and it is because of those actions that some plugins may not work correctly.
in order to show that i am wrong you must:
1) get steinberg to say otherwise regarding the 'sdk'. i might suggest that they insert this important info into the source files at the same time.
2) show the sourcecode of sonar and justify it's implementation other than "because it was easier to..".
oh, except for every other host out there?
the fact is that sonar is buggy. it should be fixed. also i'm not 'lazy', i'm producing something for free here. is sonar free? it sounds like the authors of sonar are lazy. i understand the exact reasoning for sending out-of-order events and it is to save on having to send data between threads and then sort it as should be done. the reason the authors of sonar did not implement things the way i describe is because they are lazy, they took a poorly designed shortcut instead and it is because of those actions that some plugins may not work correctly.
in order to show that i am wrong you must:
1) get steinberg to say otherwise regarding the 'sdk'. i might suggest that they insert this important info into the source files at the same time.
2) show the sourcecode of sonar and justify it's implementation other than "because it was easier to..".
-
- KVRist
- 175 posts since 1 Mar, 2003
Aahhh, the famous "how could 20 million ppl be wrong" argument. Do I really have to answer to that?aciddose wrote:oh, except for every other host out there?
The fact is that you make personal assumptions that cause xhip to not work in Sonar.the fact is that sonar is buggy. it should be fixed.
I have no clue what your reasoning is here. Free = not lazy? Not free = lazy? What are you trying to argue?also i'm not 'lazy', i'm producing something for free here. is sonar free?
Which is your precise justification for not sorting the incoming events, isn't it?2) show the sourcecode of sonar and justify it's implementation other than "because it was easier to..".
-- dj!
-
- KVRAF
- 12615 posts since 7 Dec, 2004
"Which is your precise justification for not sorting the incoming events, isn't it? "
no, mine is: because i dont have to. my argument regarding sonar being buggy is based upon the assumption that in this case: you do have to. regardless, i'm never going to get the source written if people want to argue all day. why do you even give a damn, anyway? what are you doing here?
"because i dont have to"
the best place to implement the sorting is in the host. the host can optimize this far more than a plugin can because the host has additional information about the types of events being delt with. also, it would save on having many implementations in each individual plugin if there were only one implementation in the host. this is a logical design methodology and the one applied by the designers of sonar i will guess was not. this is why i've suggested that the source be displayed and justified, perhaps there is a logical reason for such an implementation. i would say however that it is likely there is no logical reasoning behind it what-so-ever.
no, mine is: because i dont have to. my argument regarding sonar being buggy is based upon the assumption that in this case: you do have to. regardless, i'm never going to get the source written if people want to argue all day. why do you even give a damn, anyway? what are you doing here?
"because i dont have to"
the best place to implement the sorting is in the host. the host can optimize this far more than a plugin can because the host has additional information about the types of events being delt with. also, it would save on having many implementations in each individual plugin if there were only one implementation in the host. this is a logical design methodology and the one applied by the designers of sonar i will guess was not. this is why i've suggested that the source be displayed and justified, perhaps there is a logical reason for such an implementation. i would say however that it is likely there is no logical reasoning behind it what-so-ever.
-
- KVRist
- 201 posts since 28 Aug, 2006 from Glendale, AZ
sheesh guys, this is supposed to be a thread about Xhip and its improvements and latest versions--not petty arguing!
-
- Beware the Quoth
- 35476 posts since 4 Sep, 2001 from R'lyeh Oceanic Amusement Park and Funfair
so if every other host works, its a problem with sonar. if every other plugin works, its a problem with sonar.aciddose wrote:oh, except for every other host out there?
very orthoganal logic.
more assumptions. amazing how good you are at that.i understand the exact reasoning for sending out-of-order events and it is to save on having to send data between threads and then sort it as should be done. the reason the authors of sonar did not implement things the way i describe is because they are lazy, they took a poorly designed shortcut instead and it is because of those actions that some plugins may not work correctly.
how does realtime plugin-based processing of MIDI events which might have their timestamps modified on-the-fly to earlier than their original time get handled with sorted lists btw? Given that that that might mean having to handle sorting at every possible point?
Surely you'd only want sorting done when sorting was needed, rather than everywhere? ie at the processes using those events, not at any point feeding those processes which might potentially might need those events. Or is that just 'lazy' ?
in order to show that you are right you must:in order to show that i am wrong you must:
1) get steinberg to say otherwise regarding the 'sdk'. i might suggest that they insert this important info into the source files at the same time.
2) show the sourcecode of sonar and justify it's implementation other than "because it was easier to..".
1) get steinberg to say so regarding the 'sdk'. i might suggest that they insert this important info into the source files at the same time.
2) show the sourcecode of sonar and prove it's implementation is solely "because it was lazy..".
An idiot on Set Theory:
"In some cases there is an object called red that contains everything that is red. In much the same way a pot is a plate."
"In some cases there is an object called red that contains everything that is red. In much the same way a pot is a plate."
-
- KVRAF
- 12615 posts since 7 Dec, 2004
"handle sorting at every possible point?"
all events should be routed to a single point of transmission to the plugin. the transmission gating process could include sorting if required. events could be stored in a doubly-linked list and switched 'on the fly' as you describe while also allowing the fastest possible sorting method to be employed.
"1) get steinberg to say so regarding the 'sdk'. i might suggest that they insert this important info into the source files at the same time."
why should i have to do that? i have to disprove that something exists by supplying evidence? you're obviously a complete retard since anybody with half a brain knows such a thing isnt possible, ever. what i suggested that YOU should do however is possible and is in fact the CORRECT process to follow. inclusive, not exclusive. git.
"2) show the sourcecode of sonar and prove it's implementation is solely "because it was lazy.."."
i do not have the sourcecode, however i've already 'proven' within limits that the reasoning behind their implementation was only to save time and effort. i'm not aware of any other reasoning that might potentially argue for their implementation. if you are, please do share it with us.
all events should be routed to a single point of transmission to the plugin. the transmission gating process could include sorting if required. events could be stored in a doubly-linked list and switched 'on the fly' as you describe while also allowing the fastest possible sorting method to be employed.
"1) get steinberg to say so regarding the 'sdk'. i might suggest that they insert this important info into the source files at the same time."
why should i have to do that? i have to disprove that something exists by supplying evidence? you're obviously a complete retard since anybody with half a brain knows such a thing isnt possible, ever. what i suggested that YOU should do however is possible and is in fact the CORRECT process to follow. inclusive, not exclusive. git.
"2) show the sourcecode of sonar and prove it's implementation is solely "because it was lazy.."."
i do not have the sourcecode, however i've already 'proven' within limits that the reasoning behind their implementation was only to save time and effort. i'm not aware of any other reasoning that might potentially argue for their implementation. if you are, please do share it with us.
-
- KVRist
- 175 posts since 1 Mar, 2003
Calling someone names when you can't win an argument? How childish. I mistook this for a serious discussion, dunno what I was thinking. Nevermind, I'm out of here.
-- dj!
-- dj!
-
- KVRAF
- 12615 posts since 7 Dec, 2004
"can't win an argument?"
i just have won, what are you talking about? besides i'm not calling him names because of his arguments, i'm calling him names because they're what accurately describe him based upon his reasoning. i defeated his arguments by showing through logic that they're invalid. what you're trying to apply to me here would only work if i hadnt defeated his arguments separately. i curse him due to my lack of respect for the man, not because i'm upset about what he says. he is a definite bad-guy and we would all be better off without him around here on kvr.
should i also call you names? you just made a personal attack against me without including any logical reasoning and so in fact, i reflect the same accusation which you've just attempted to fire off toward me. uh, nice try at making a retreat, though.
i just have won, what are you talking about? besides i'm not calling him names because of his arguments, i'm calling him names because they're what accurately describe him based upon his reasoning. i defeated his arguments by showing through logic that they're invalid. what you're trying to apply to me here would only work if i hadnt defeated his arguments separately. i curse him due to my lack of respect for the man, not because i'm upset about what he says. he is a definite bad-guy and we would all be better off without him around here on kvr.
should i also call you names? you just made a personal attack against me without including any logical reasoning and so in fact, i reflect the same accusation which you've just attempted to fire off toward me. uh, nice try at making a retreat, though.
-
AdmiralQuality AdmiralQuality https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=83902
- Banned
- 6657 posts since 10 Oct, 2005 from Toronto, Canada
Genuine attempt to help: Why not implement the MIDI all notes off message? I see you have a function for it already ADNotelogic::allNotesOff(), but aren't filtering for the msssage in ADNotelogic::midi()
Not sure and don't have time to prove it, but I'll bet that's your issue, not sorting or lack thereof. (Which again, Poly-Ana doesn't do but AFAIK works fine in Sonar anyway.)
Not sure and don't have time to prove it, but I'll bet that's your issue, not sorting or lack thereof. (Which again, Poly-Ana doesn't do but AFAIK works fine in Sonar anyway.)
-
- KVRAF
- 12615 posts since 7 Dec, 2004
"Genuine attempt to help: Why not implement the MIDI all notes off message? I see you have a function for it already ADNotelogic::allNotesOff(), but aren't filtering for the msssage in ADNotelogic::midi()"
i used to do that but users reported that some hosts send the midi message at times when they'd really it rather not. (they wanted the notes to remain on when stop was pressed if no note-off had been sent.. or something like that. anyway removing the check for that message fixed it for them.)
i'd rather implement sorting actually, although you're also right about responding to all-notes-off so i suppose i'll do both. i hope i dont get another complaint about it though since then i'd need to add an option to ignore it.
i used to do that but users reported that some hosts send the midi message at times when they'd really it rather not. (they wanted the notes to remain on when stop was pressed if no note-off had been sent.. or something like that. anyway removing the check for that message fixed it for them.)
i'd rather implement sorting actually, although you're also right about responding to all-notes-off so i suppose i'll do both. i hope i dont get another complaint about it though since then i'd need to add an option to ignore it.