Image Line

lharless · Post by **lharless** » Sat Feb 17, 2007 4:37 pm

crackers suck the life out of everything good.

xapi · Post by **xapi** » Sun Feb 18, 2007 3:23 am

Fl 7 is tha boooooorrrrmmmb

wtrwlkr · Post by **wtrwlkr** » Sun Feb 18, 2007 3:32 am

what's different about it besides more lame fx & instruments?

morelia · Post by **morelia** » Sun Feb 18, 2007 3:43 am

wtrwlkr wrote:what's different about it besides more lame fx & instruments?

I think they re-lamed the LGUI and then re-lamed the samples. I think as a special treat they went back over some of the old fx and instruments and realised they could make them even more lame with a few minor tweaks. Overall it's being hailed as the lamest version ever which is why a lot of people are quite excited. So as you can see, it's not just more lame fx and instruments but the IL team have gone out of their way to add the same lameness to the whole FLS environment. Really shows their commitment to the whole lame paradigm. I just hope they haven't burned out and that they still have some gas in the tank for some more lameness come the next big realease. Fingers crossed.

Vonbrucken · Post by **Vonbrucken** » Sun Feb 18, 2007 2:45 pm

morelia wrote:
wtrwlkr wrote:what's different about it besides more lame fx & instruments?
I think they re-lamed the LGUI and then re-lamed the samples. I think as a special treat they went back over some of the old fx and instruments and realised they could make them even more lame with a few minor tweaks. Overall it's being hailed as the lamest version ever which is why a lot of people are quite excited. So as you can see, it's not just more lame fx and instruments but the IL team have gone out of their way to add the same lameness to the whole FLS environment. Really shows their commitment to the whole lame paradigm. I just hope they haven't burned out and that they still have some gas in the tank for some more lameness come the next big realease. Fingers crossed.

woot

taking the time to write things about a host you don't like i am really impressed , but i guess you had nothing to do and it was too tempting for you

morelia · Post by **morelia** » Mon Feb 19, 2007 5:39 am

Vonbrucken wrote:taking the time to write things about a host you don't like i am really impressed , but i guess you had nothing to do and it was too tempting for you

I like to think you're laughing with me

. My whole post was a lie. I just hate seeing people not being supported when they need it so desperately. Yeah! Lame it up IL.

musikmachine · Post by **musikmachine** » Tue Feb 20, 2007 12:08 am

morelia wrote:
wtrwlkr wrote:what's different about it besides more lame fx & instruments?
I think they re-lamed the LGUI and then re-lamed the samples. I think as a special treat they went back over some of the old fx and instruments and realised they could make them even more lame with a few minor tweaks. Overall it's being hailed as the lamest version ever which is why a lot of people are quite excited. So as you can see, it's not just more lame fx and instruments but the IL team have gone out of their way to add the same lameness to the whole FLS environment. Really shows their commitment to the whole lame paradigm. I just hope they haven't burned out and that they still have some gas in the tank for some more lameness come the next big realease. Fingers crossed.

Don't forget the new improved lameinated GUI

The Unsigned · Post by **The Unsigned** » Tue Feb 20, 2007 3:06 am

Chris Walton wrote:
bambooman wrote:FL 7 RC5 is out, bugfix release.

i've spent more time with it now,
and i have to say it is alot more cpu hungry
than the previous 6x version.
all demo tracks / cool stuff tracks etc.
go up to 89% with crackles and some freeze
the only track that runs smooth is that
little rap track - even that one uses already close to 50%

would be nice to see a less hungry final version,
otherwhise i'm forced to use 6x until i get a new PC.
Huh? FL7 works just as fast as FL6 for me, if not a bit faster even

I second that. Without any option changes at first it seems FL7 is more CPU intensive. I have a project that peaks at 100% CPU in FL6, which peaks at 97% in FL7. With the "smart disable" macros function enabled, I get a CPU cut of over 20%, when compared to FL v6.08. So all in all, FL7 is the best performing FL I've used, and I've used every version since v3.0. This is using an Athlon 64 (2.1GHz).

Word.

P3U6!SUn 3H+

morelia · Post by **morelia** » Tue Feb 20, 2007 6:11 am

musikmachine wrote:
morelia wrote:I think they re-lamed the LGUI and ....
Don't forget the new improved lameinated GUI

musikmachine · Post by **musikmachine** » Tue Feb 20, 2007 2:40 pm

morelia wrote:
musikmachine wrote:
morelia wrote:I think they re-lamed the LGUI and ....
Don't forget the new improved lameinated GUI

I know, i just wanted to say relameinated

Seriously though,FL7 is the most transparent host i've used.

Weird thing is i had a dream telling me i should be using FL and whaddya know

Nidup · Post by **Nidup** » Sat Mar 10, 2007 12:10 pm

hye guys..im new here and using FL too..(from 4 until now,7).

this is one of my songs which mixed by FL!

http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/2/16/ ... WIP%29.mp3

adj · Post by **adj** » Sat Mar 10, 2007 1:50 pm

Nidup wrote:hye guys..im new here and using FL too..(from 4 until now,7).

this is one of my songs which mixed by FL!

http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/2/16/ ... WIP%29.mp3

Hey Nidup

You should post this in the 'Music Cafe' and you'll have a better chance of getting it heard.

KVR Music Cafe

Cheers,
Alex

original flipper · Post by **original flipper** » Sat Mar 10, 2007 2:28 pm

HI

I have owned FL through several versions now; unfortunately I never previously got far, with the new clips I have actually got a couple of compositions done - so for me V7 is a step in the right direction.

I still struggle with FL though - I find it difficult to get a 'feel' or perhaps a better word is 'sense?' of exactly how it all ties together.

When working with clips (and I am no expert with FL so I ask here as I might have missed something) I can't see the relationship between Instruments/Clip lanes/Mixer; it just doesn't seem organized!

Why aren't clip tracks numbered or somehow related to the position of instruments in the step-sequencer rack?

I think things could do with some reorganisation (unless as stated I am unaware of certain ways of setting stuffup).

Flipper.

neokoo · Post by **neokoo** » Sat Mar 10, 2007 2:48 pm

original flipper wrote: When working with clips (and I am no expert with FL so I ask here as I might have missed something) I can't see the relationship between Instruments/Clip lanes/Mixer; it just doesn't seem organized!

I see it as flexibility. A clip can contain different instruments, which could be routed to different mixer channels. It is quite possible to do things in FL in traditional way (one instrument per clip, one playlist lane for clips of that instrument, one mixer track for that instrument). However, once you get used to it, the FL way of assigning instruments to mixer channels and freely placeable pattern/automation clips become very convenient.

djbassay2k5 · Post by **djbassay2k5** » Thu Mar 15, 2007 2:35 am

i have a question, i have been a demo for quite some time now and dont have access to the FL Studio Forums, and i would like to know if FL now supports motorized faders on out board hardware

Image Line

KVR Audio

FL Studio 7