KVR Audio

antto · Post by **antto** » Tue Sep 01, 2009 7:20 pm

i think that the ID is important, and should be registered so you don't get reports from your users that "hey, your plugin doesn't work! my host says something about duplicate VST ID or something, i want my money back, you freak!"

btw i had the idea that from the outside, a vst plugin just has to have a few specific exported functions, and the rest is not so important

duncanparsons · Post by **duncanparsons** » Tue Sep 01, 2009 7:37 pm

thevinn wrote:I released DspFilters under the MIT license precisely so it could be commercially exploited if desired.

is that the dsp-worx stuff?

[EDIT]Apologies - no, of course not! Your's is the recent c++ thing at sourceforge isn't it.. Sorry, brain freex there - better make some tea

[/EDIT]

Rock Hardbuns · Post by **Rock Hardbuns** » Tue Sep 01, 2009 7:38 pm

I kind of doubt any host use them anymore. Several of my plugs have the same ID because I forgot to change it. No complaints so far.

duncanparsons · Post by **duncanparsons** » Tue Sep 01, 2009 7:41 pm

I recall that AudioMulch or Plogue Bidule might use them, or certainly still did a year or two ago. I had a complaint about duplicates with EQ22 because the original and oversampled versions used the same ID initially. But both have moved on since then.

deraudrl · Post by **deraudrl** » Tue Sep 01, 2009 7:44 pm

antto wrote:btw i had the idea that from the outside, a vst plugin just has to have a few specific exported functions, and the rest is not so important

That's the syntax, but there's also the semantics: those functions have to have some rather precise behavior if you expect the host to accept the DLL as a valid VST plugin.

(Oh god, I really hate Doxygen: it allows software developers who don't understand the difference between syntax and semantics to feel smug about providing "documentation" for their function/class libraries, when in fact all they've really given me is an HTML wrapper around syntax information that's already in the freaking header files. But I digress...)

jpommier · Post by **jpommier** » Tue Sep 01, 2009 11:01 pm

Robin from www.rs-met.com wrote: mmmhh interesting - but FST seems to still require the VST SDK nonetheless. generally, the whole ardour project is certainly worth to keep an eye on.

Just use the git version of fst, it uses the "VeSTige" headers, which is the clean-room reverse engineered vstsdk. However it is more targeted at writing hosts than plugins: http://lalists.stanford.edu/lad/2009/06/0054.html

writing a VST plugin without the VST-SDK