jpleong.
RolixWhat I mean is: route MIDI output of VST A to MIDI input of VST B.
I regard this as a rather vital feature of any sequencer and it is an important feature for me. I know it hat been requested several times by different users, and I’m curious if we can expect it any time this year?
Kind regards,
Roland
ZynewaveI very much hope so. I would prefer to wait until Steinberg releases the VST3 spec, as this may present some changes to how this can be supported. But there has been no news from Steinberg in a long time, regarding availability of the VST3 spec.
Rolix@Zynewave wrote:
I very much hope so. I would prefer to wait until Steinberg releases the VST3 spec, as this may present some changes to how this can be supported. But there has been no news from Steinberg in a long time, regarding availability of the VST3 spec.
Doesn’t make sense to me (to wait for the VST3 specs): the vast majority of plugins are VST2’s, and I’d be surprised if VST3 would introduce a completely different way of processing MIDI data. Frits, I very much appreciate your work and I’m aware that other users here have different needs, but possibly having to wait another year for MIDI routing? Too much for me š
Zynewavethe vast majority of plugins are VST2’s, and I’d be surprised if VST3 would introduce a completely different way of processing MIDI data
It should be backwards-compatible, but they may introduce new methods in VST3 that would expand on the MIDI functionality. I’d prefer implementing this with the latest VST3 spec, rather than doing it with 2.4 and then having to redo it when VST3 comes out. I know that when they went from VST2.3 to 2.4, a lot of the old functions were declared “deprecated”, meaning that they may not be supported in future versions of the VST spec and future versions of Cubase etc.
Rolix@Zynewave wrote:
I’d prefer implementing this with the latest VST3 spec, rather than doing it with 2.4 and then having to redo it when VST3 comes out. I know that when they went from VST2.3 to 2.4, a lot of the old functions were declared “deprecated”, meaning that they may not be supported in future versions of the VST spec and future versions of Cubase etc.
From a programmers point of view, your argument is reasonable. From my personal perspective as a user interested in a specific feature, it is not. As a user I simply ask: will I get that feature as soon as possible or will I have to look for it elsewhere? Using a VST-Host like EXT is no option since I will loose the preset library I’ve built so far in Podium. No option left than looking elsewhere?
Zynewavewill I get that feature as soon as possible or will I have to look for it elsewhere?
It is a feature that is on the plan, and I’ll definitely start on it at some point, but based on past experiences I cannot say when. Implementing this ASAP would mean that other features will slide down the priority list. Those other features may be more important to other users. The recent batch of mixer improvement releases was not something I had planned a couple of months ago, and it is a good example of how the priorities may shift as a consequence of user feedback. Before that I was working on time-stretching, which I hope to get back to when I’m done with the mixer improvements. After that, plugin MIDI routing support may well be next in line.
Rolix@Zynewave wrote:
[…] when I’m done with the mixer improvements. After that, plugin MIDI routing support may well be next in line.
Anything I can do to turn this into “will be next in line” š
Maybe send some flowers š
Pigini+1 on that.
supporting as many plugins as possible should have a top priority, so everyone could add the features he’s missing by using dedicated plugins.
who knows when or if the vsti 3.0 gets out. right now, we only have the plugins, which do exist. and the whole lot of midi processing plugins can not be used in podium.
ConquistadorI guess it must be tricky at times balancing our needs as users Frits, but I do think a simple poll (if necessary) would solve that completely.
It must be a bit difficult to gauge how interested users are in a feature if only one or two express interest. I imagine a thread like the “when will it be possible” Z grid discussion makes things much clearer.
In any case a simple poll run over two weeks, should easily solve any problems with decisions as to what to work on next. I think two weeks is better because it is unrealitisic to expect other Podium users to all login within a day of the poll starting or even a week.
Two weeks is the usual time frame for new releases or a little more in some cases, so I think many Podium users log in at least within two weeks so that will give all users a pretty good timeframe to respond to a poll about the next update or planned features.
Also two weeks would give you as the developer more time to finish off any work you are currently doing before the poll ends, so there will be no more radical or sudden shifts in priorities for you.
It could even be that the poll results in things (priorities) staying *as they are* but at least you will not as the developer have to worry about a sudden change in your development focus.
I personally think the FR raised in this thread is a good one, but I am far more interested in seeing a fix for the loop problem Podium has had for some time now before any new feature. Many hosts have issues that are simply forgotten over time and as a result add up over time.
I certainly do not want Podium to go that way. The bug in question appears to be the only one I know of still in Podium.
Again I am also interested in the FR suggested in this thread but I would…
a. Like to see Frits finish off his excellent work on the mixer.
b. Also like to see a return to finishing off time stretching features in Podium (completely), with a possible realtime preview of audio files (with tempo sync) in the List view.
c. ZGrid A massive feature. IMO this will radically change how I and I think (judging by the thread below) many others would use Podium.
http://www.zynewave.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=880&highlight=zgrid
I have waited for around 2 years for that kind of functionality in Podium!
The ZGrid is really my no.1 FR but I would still like Frits to finish the superb mixer improvements and timestretching features before looking at the ZGrid.
d. A menu command added to the project page “that will modify the audio mapping objects to the current interface selection.”
Discussed here..
http://www.zynewave.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1198
I think a poll (again if it is even necessary) over two weeks would give all current users of Podium a chance to have their say on any discussion on new features if interests among users differ too much, which is very rare (so far anyway).
Up to you Frits but if you want existing and potential users to vote/comment then a poll could be set up outside the VIP forum. If you only want to see existing users respond then quite simply if the poll is set up in the VIP area then only registered existing customers can vote. š
Perhaps the latter VIP suggestion is better as a poll might reflect the needs of potential buyers (possibly not using Podium) more than existing users.
While both are important I guess that is a choice you as the developer might have to make. I don’t think I would want the bulk of new features added to Podium based on the views of people who do not actually use it.
ZynewaveI think I have a good sense of what features users expect. There are technical factors that I need to consider when deciding what to work on next. The amount of work that is required for a requested feature may not be proportional to the apparent complexity of the feature, as seen from a users standpoint. So there are quite a few “minor” feature requests on the future forum that I have put on hold, as they would heavily delay the implementation of some of the major features.
Furthermore, there can be technical reasons why I prefer to do some features in a certain order, as one feature may build on the implementation of other features. That’s why I prefer to concentrate on one area of Podium at the time. Like the recent mixer improvements, which currently have led me to think about some improvements to the main track region, as well as minor changes to the track properties. It all follows a red thread, but it’s not always possible to tell where this will end up a couple of months from now.
ConquistadorI think at the end of the day personally I think your judgement of user requests versus development time appears to be very good so far anyway. It would be impossible to please everyone all the time.
Rolix@Zynewave wrote:
I think I have a good sense of what features users expect. There are technical factors that I need to consider when deciding what to work on next. The amount of work that is required for a requested feature may not be proportional to the apparent complexity of the feature, as seen from a users standpoint. So there are quite a few “minor” feature requests on the future forum that I have put on hold, as they would heavily delay the implementation of some of the major features.
Furthermore, there can be technical reasons why I prefer to do some features in a certain order, as one feature may build on the implementation of other features. That’s why I prefer to concentrate on one area of Podium at the time. Like the recent mixer improvements, which currently have led me to think about some improvements to the main track region, as well as minor changes to the track properties. It all follows a red thread, but it’s not always possible to tell where this will end up a couple of months from now.
Seems I should express my apologies for misunderstanding the lines on your homepage saying: “Software updates are released frequently and are planned with the involvement of the user community.” and for not taking regard of the read thread you are following? I’m sorry if my needs don’t correspond to your workflow, Frits.
I’m sorry too that Podium will not support my workflow in the near future and that I’ll have to spend time and money again to find a DAW that suits my needs.
PodianerI think your judgement on Frits is a little bit unfair. Frits managed to add features to Podium that took most other companies months and even years. Podium still lacks some features, but this list gets shorter with every release.. And always when people had ideas, Frits was openminded to them and soon these features (if appropriate) made it into Podium. So if you would stay and try to workaround your routing problem, perhaps you will be pleased with how Podium develops and you might see more advantages in Podium’s approach than you see now..
Just my 2 cents..
jpleongMy heart says, “Yes! VST Instruments, please!”
My head and pocketbook say, “Enhanced editing (fade in/out) and CANCEL feature!”
Since my livelihood is based on the latter, I have to agree with Frits for the moment…
JP