Let's talk reaktor 6.4

[glokraw]

I hope Native Access will make it easy in the future
to find, download, install, and register any paid NI product/version
in an account. That would be truly excellent policy and support
Cheers

[Greenstorm33]

I'm fine with Block / Rack ecosystem that includes both free and paid modules - I'd just like to be able to work within that system for my own use without approval from NI. I think with both VCV and Cherry you can create code your own modules and of course use them in racks without first authorizing them and making them public. That's the only aspect I find problematic.

I'd probably never finish exploring Eurorakt anyway, but it seems like a missed opportunity on NI's part.

I think you've summed up how I'm feeling. Would just be nice to use the new patch cables with my own hacked-together Blocks that I'd never dream of trying to sell or even share (really, I'm more circuit bender than developer )

Unless I've misunderstood what people have been saying, you can use the new wiring system in the old Ensemble blocks environment. You just can't use the new Rack system with the convenience of easily saving your stuff with your host project. So really it's a gain of functionality for builders, even though the second new feature (Racks) is a stupid walled garden.

[gentleclockdivider]

Plenty of other ways to build stuff for yourself in Reaktor, tho.

That sounds like a confirmation to all the criticism about reaktor 6.3 closed eco rack

Not really. herw did cables in regular ensembles ages ago...

I am talking about the closed eco rack ,herw's patchable ensembles have nothing to do with that

[chk071]

I hope Native Access will make it easy in the future
to find, download, install, and register any paid NI product/version
in an account. That would be truly excellent policy and support
Cheers

TBH, i had quite a few problems with installing updates recently. Clouds the good impression i had with it before. I could always solve it, sometimes with reinstalling the plugins, but, frankly, it could work better.

[gentleclockdivider]

I'm fine with Block / Rack ecosystem that includes both free and paid modules - I'd just like to be able to work within that system for my own use without approval from NI. I think with both VCV and Cherry you can create code your own modules and of course use them in racks without first authorizing them and making them public. That's the only aspect I find problematic.

I'd probably never finish exploring Eurorakt anyway, but it seems like a missed opportunity on NI's part.

I think you've summed up how I'm feeling. Would just be nice to use the new patch cables with my own hacked-together Blocks that I'd never dream of trying to sell or even share (really, I'm more circuit bender than developer )

Unless I've misunderstood what people have been saying, you can use the new wiring system in the old Ensemble blocks environment. You just can't use the new Rack system with the convenience of easily saving your stuff with your host project. So really it's a gain of functionality for builders, even though the second new feature (Racks) is a stupid walled garden.

Exactly , and the wires are not colour coded
Screenshot 1 : rack mode , file size couple of kilobytes , locked modules


Screenshot 2 : after saving the rack mode to an ensemble , file size 40 mb , only white cables , modules are unlocked

[pdxindy]

I'm fine with Block / Rack ecosystem that includes both free and paid modules - I'd just like to be able to work within that system for my own use without approval from NI. I think with both VCV and Cherry you can create code your own modules and of course use them in racks without first authorizing them and making them public. That's the only aspect I find problematic.

I'd probably never finish exploring Eurorakt anyway, but it seems like a missed opportunity on NI's part.

I think you've summed up how I'm feeling. Would just be nice to use the new patch cables with my own hacked-together Blocks that I'd never dream of trying to sell or even share (really, I'm more circuit bender than developer )

Unless I've misunderstood what people have been saying, you can use the new wiring system in the old Ensemble blocks environment. You just can't use the new Rack system with the convenience of easily saving your stuff with your host project. So really it's a gain of functionality for builders, even though the second new feature (Racks) is a stupid walled garden.

Saving stuff with the host project is big... I so dislike the whole convoluted preset system of Blocks. Being able to just save in the host project is what makes me even consider using Racks. But then none of the various free blocks from users are available in Racks.

And while it is possible to convert a Rack creation into a regular ensemble to use user blocks, the converted modules will have wires but the added user modules wont.

So NI added a new layer of complexity with some nice additional functionality, but it is missing some capability from regular Blocks. Regular Blocks does not have the new capability. So there isn't one place that can do everything. Seems pretty messy at the moment.

[gentleclockdivider]

Yes, which is why I have been asking for vector graphics ,it brings down the file size by a huge amount and some welcome additions like infinite zooming etcc.
The way max msp handles it and even vcv rack .
N.I. needs to tackle these issues

[Taika-Kim]

To me the new closed ecosystem sounds fantastic. It might entice people to do commercial modules of high quality, and also saving with the project is a big plus. One of the main things that's been keeping me from using Reaktor more than incidentally has been the way the ensembles need to be kept separate from the projects. I already spend a lot of time building complicated things in other software, I don't have time to do deep Reaktor devices myself so I'm just happy to get a system that's more practical and easy to approach.

[JoeCat]

The ensemble approach worked great for building instruments like synths (or more closely their software and modern hardware counterparts, that have built-in effects, etc.), with snapshots as patches. The modular environment doesn't quite fit that model, especially in software, where one thinks of a set of modules wired a particular way as a patch, not necessarily an instrument (ensemble).

In any case, if there were a "tool" to convert any standard blocks to a rack blocks (any block - your own something from the user library, something modded, a locked block), you could create a Rack, save it, etc.

The ability to lock blocks from being modded is already built-in to the Reaktor eco-system, so you could still have an environment for commercial third-party blocks, - NI could have a library of locked blocks (free/purchase) that work with Reaktor Player in Racks, and the existing User-Library for sharing and working in Ensembles, with the ability to convert any blocks to the Rack system for the convenience of cabling, smaller file sizes, and host saving.

Unless I'm missing something there's no business reason that couldn't exist, so I'm guessing the problem is technical. And that means maybe it's something NI will in fact address in a future release. If that's true and I were an NI rep, I'd want to announce that ASAP because I think the "branching" affect of these to environments is (IMO) going to discourage Reaktor development. I think a future commercial market has a better chance of success if the existing market of User Library fans like me stay with it.

I've already downloaded VCV - at first I was a bit discouraged about working outside my DAW until I realized it was no different than working with a hardware modular, and still more convenient and cheaper. That's a free, open-source library with a commercial component that's thriving.

[ccooll]

...In any case, if there were a "tool" to convert any standard blocks to a rack blocks (any block - your own something from the user library, something modded, a locked block), you could create a Rack, save it, etc.

The ability to lock blocks from being modded is already built-in to the Reaktor eco-system, so you could still have an environment for commercial third-party blocks, - NI could have a library of locked blocks (free/purchase) that work with Reaktor Player in Racks, and the existing User-Library for sharing and working in Ensembles, with the ability to convert any blocks to the Rack system for the convenience of cabling, smaller file sizes, and host saving.

Unless I'm missing something there's no business reason that couldn't exist, so I'm guessing the problem is technical. And that means maybe it's something NI will in fact address in a future release. If that's true and I were an NI rep, I'd want to announce that ASAP because I think the "branching" affect of these to environments is (IMO) going to discourage Reaktor development. I think a future commercial market has a better chance of success if the existing market of User Library fans like me stay with it.

The reason for the registration requirement is that Racks are saved using references to blocks files, which makes the file format very small, so it can be saved in a DAW 'host chunk'. For this to work it's very important that there is consistency - every Rack Block must have a unique identifier that applies only to that version of the Block, or the whole system will collapse - which makes sense. And the locking of the Blocks is to prevent them from getting out of sync through editing and causing other Racks dependent on those - now edited - blocks to fail...
What doesn't make sense is that the cool new feature - front panel patching - could have been a separate development that worked just as well in the non Racks parts of Reaktor, but it has been developed in such a way that it only works properly in Racks. If front panel patching worked with standard ensembles of Blocks, and could be saved in snapshots and presets, I think everyone would be loving this update!

[pdxindy]

The reason for the registration requirement is that Racks are saved using references to blocks files, which makes the file format very small, so it can be saved in a DAW 'host chunk'. For this to work it's very important that there is consistency - every Rack Block must have a unique identifier that applies only to that version of the Block, or the whole system will collapse - which makes sense.

There could be an easy online registration that anyone can do in couple minutes... Hell, everyone who has Reaktor could have a block of 50 or whatever registration numbers unique to them to which they can assign blocks right in Native Access in their account.

[ccooll]

The reason for the registration requirement is that Racks are saved using references to blocks files, which makes the file format very small, so it can be saved in a DAW 'host chunk'. For this to work it's very important that there is consistency - every Rack Block must have a unique identifier that applies only to that version of the Block, or the whole system will collapse - which makes sense.

There could be an easy online registration that anyone can do in couple minutes... Hell, everyone who has Reaktor could have a block of 50 or whatever registration numbers unique to them to which they can assign blocks right in Native Access in their account.

Yeah, I'm not sure it would be that simple, but there definitely would be some way of providing identifiers for licenced Reaktor users.
I guess that currently, the system they have would then allow unlicensed Player users to then use those Blocks, so before they can allow us to register our own stuff, they need a two tier system that differentiates between Licenced Reaktor and the Player. But to save money and get it to market quick, they prioritised marketing potential over existing customers, and only implemented the Player side with this update. Maybe we'll get a Licenced User version in a future update.
[All experienced Reaktor users know how long takes for those kind of things to happen]

[gentleclockdivider]

...In any case, if there were a "tool" to convert any standard blocks to a rack blocks (any block - your own something from the user library, something modded, a locked block), you could create a Rack, save it, etc.

The ability to lock blocks from being modded is already built-in to the Reaktor eco-system, so you could still have an environment for commercial third-party blocks, - NI could have a library of locked blocks (free/purchase) that work with Reaktor Player in Racks, and the existing User-Library for sharing and working in Ensembles, with the ability to convert any blocks to the Rack system for the convenience of cabling, smaller file sizes, and host saving.

Unless I'm missing something there's no business reason that couldn't exist, so I'm guessing the problem is technical. And that means maybe it's something NI will in fact address in a future release. If that's true and I were an NI rep, I'd want to announce that ASAP because I think the "branching" affect of these to environments is (IMO) going to discourage Reaktor development. I think a future commercial market has a better chance of success if the existing market of User Library fans like me stay with it.

What doesn't make sense is that the cool new feature - front panel patching - could have been a separate development that worked just as well in the non Racks parts of Reaktor, but it has been developed in such a way that it only works properly in Racks. If front panel patching worked with standard ensembles of Blocks, and could be saved in snapshots and presets, I think everyone would be loving this update!

Front panel patching also works in ensemble mode , without the benefit of the new preset system and only white cables ( see my posted screenshots )

[ccooll]

...In any case, if there were a "tool" to convert any standard blocks to a rack blocks (any block - your own something from the user library, something modded, a locked block), you could create a Rack, save it, etc.

The ability to lock blocks from being modded is already built-in to the Reaktor eco-system, so you could still have an environment for commercial third-party blocks, - NI could have a library of locked blocks (free/purchase) that work with Reaktor Player in Racks, and the existing User-Library for sharing and working in Ensembles, with the ability to convert any blocks to the Rack system for the convenience of cabling, smaller file sizes, and host saving.

Unless I'm missing something there's no business reason that couldn't exist, so I'm guessing the problem is technical. And that means maybe it's something NI will in fact address in a future release. If that's true and I were an NI rep, I'd want to announce that ASAP because I think the "branching" affect of these to environments is (IMO) going to discourage Reaktor development. I think a future commercial market has a better chance of success if the existing market of User Library fans like me stay with it.

What doesn't make sense is that the cool new feature - front panel patching - could have been a separate development that worked just as well in the non Racks parts of Reaktor, but it has been developed in such a way that it only works properly in Racks. If front panel patching worked with standard ensembles of Blocks, and could be saved in snapshots and presets, I think everyone would be loving this update!

Front panel patching also works in ensemble mode , without the benefit of the new preset system and only white cables ( see my posted screenshots )

Exactly like I said - it only works *properly* in racks
A patching system that doesn't allow saving other than via ensembles of 10s or 100s of mb per patch, that can't be easily listed withing the apps own browser, and can't be transferred to e.g. bugfixed versions of the ensemble doesn't work properly IMO.

[JoeCat]

...In any case, if there were a "tool" to convert any standard blocks to a rack blocks (any block - your own something from the user library, something modded, a locked block), you could create a Rack, save it, etc. ...

Unless I'm missing something there's no business reason that couldn't exist, so I'm guessing the problem is technical...

The reason for the registration requirement is that Racks are saved using references to blocks files, which makes the file format very small, so it can be saved in a DAW 'host chunk'. For this to work it's very important tat there is consistency - every Rack Block must have a unique identifier that applies only to that version of the Block, or the whole system will collapse - which makes sense...

That then would be the technical issue - hashing the block for linking so that it uses a unique identifier.

There's actually a simple solution for that. Microsoft uses it, so you can install / release software on Windows without a central authority, but it's not unique to Microsoft. Tools are easily available and it would work in Reaktor for both paid / free commercial and personal creations:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal ... identifier

Small businesses like mine can release software along with Office, etc., and the version is, for practical applications, guaranteed unique. So you can mix user / commercial without central registration.

NI - problem solved!