druidI agree with Malcom Jacobson to some degree, though if one user were to help another, and they’d renamed panels, would that person remember what the default names are to help them?
However, .xml files or similar would indeed make it easy to translate the UI, once unicode is in place (if it ever happens). Even when it’s not, for lame ASCII languages it would be easy. (Just kidding about the lame. 😉 )
druidYes, I always wondered about the “browser” window; I even now keep opening it thinking that I will get a browser where I can search folders and things!
I agree with the browser->project. The list to browser is alright, but something feels wrong with me for that still. I have no other suggestion, however.
druidThe new beta .exe works fine for me as well.
On that note, I kind of like having access to the .exe file and not having to reinstall, causing a new folder in my program files to be made even if I select a different directory, a desktop icon being created, the zynewave projects folder in my documents which I remove, and so forth. 🙂
druidThough by a small number so far, it is seeming people with Vista are fine … and people not, are not.
Is there any reason you don’t keep an XP machine around, Frits? I daresay most people still use XP, and Vista and XP are not entirely cross-compatible (if that’s the term). In order to be sure, I think it a good idea to keep both Vista and XP available for, at the very least, quick testing.
With that said, I totally understand it’s not solved yet, more people would need to chime in with their OS and results. ’twas merely a preliminary comment.
druidOk, so I’ve tried the .exe file. It didn’t work. I extracted it to my 2.10 installation folder, ran Podium211.exe, crash. Same thing. Ran the 2.10 .exe version, runs fine. So just the .exe download has the same problem.
However, on a whim I right clicked the Podium211.exe, and went to the compatibilty page. And selected Windows 2000 mode. As expected, same problem. Same for Windows NT 5 or whatever it is mode. BUT! Windows 98 / ME, and Windows 95 compatibility modes DID work! 2.11 ran under those compatibility modes. Why on earth would this be?
I might add I don’t really know what Windows does in the background for the “compatibility” modes, but it seems pretty weird to me!
So… Could it be a reliance on something that Vista has that you didn’t take into account, that XP would not? This is merely conjecture; everyone makes mistakes but somehow I don’t think you did this. But it’s worth asking anyway!
@Zynewave wrote:
Are any of you that have the crash problem running Vista?
…
The installer only automatically removes the previous installation if the version number increases.
…
That’s the updated guide pdf file, which I have created with a higher quality setting for the graphics.
First of all, I’m running Windows XP Professional.
Ah that would explain the size of the file.
Yes I know I should remove newer versions first. So it doesn’t even extract the older files, it just cancels installation if a newer version is present. That’s fair enough, that means only 2.11 was crashing for me.
druidFirst, to answer, then some new information.
No, I get no window at all. I click on it and within a second it just brings up the crash window. When I click for detailed error info, it says what I quoted. I can also click on more detail and it has all this hexadecimal stuff but I have no idea how to copy/paste it (can’t be selected in the window) nor if it’s any use to you. Renaming podium.ini to podium.fini and podium.ini.back did not work (just to make sure it really wasn’t reading it :P).
Extra info:
When I select run Podium after install, it just does nothing. I noticed msiexec.exe or something like that running in my processes, and I don’t believe that is usually running, but I might be wrong… Nothing else looks out of the ordinary.
Now, here’s something weird. I decided to reinstall 2.10. Usually I do not uninstall the previous version before installing the next (since it has worked before). This time, I did not uninstall 2.11, and installed 2.10 over the top. I told it to run after install, and it crashes with some illegal exception 5 error or something. I then ran it manually … same crash! Weird, I thought. So I restarted my computer… And it still crashed!
I decided to be more thorough. I uninstalled 2.10 and 2.11 (what I mean is, they were the same folder, but there were two entries in add/remove, so I removed both). Made sure nothing was left in folders, if they even existed. Nope. Installed 2.10… and it works. Installed 2.11 again .. same crash! Installed 2.10 (over the top again) – same crash!
So, if I install 2.11, it crashes. If I install 2.10 over the top, 2.10 crashes as well. I could try 2.09 and 2.08 etc over the top as well, if you were curious :P. But, if I remove it all, install 2.10 fresh, it works. I have not put back in my podium.ini at all since trying these things.
I doubt it will make a difference, but something else I noticed is when I press close on the crash window, Instead of vanishing completely and instantly, the two sides vanish, like there’s some setup for another window in a square shape within that window. If that’s too confusing, don’t worry about it, it’s probably not going to tell you what’s happening.
If I find out more, I’ll get back.
:edit:
I didn’t realise I hadn’t tried installing 2.11 and restarting without having run it first. So, I redownloaded the installer (just in case), installed it, did NOT run it and restarted first. Same crash.
Also, that weird window I mentioned? I moved the crash window and I have realised what the window is; it is the splash screen that says Zynewave Podium on it, the vertical rectangle one. It had no texture in it, just typical frozen screen (whatever was on the screen when the window was formed, sticks there until the application, and subsequently its windows, are force-closed by Windows).
Finally, I noticed that the .msi installer is around 2mb bigger. May mean nothing, but am saying it just in case it’s relevant.
druidI was using 2.10 this morning (in Aus land anyway!) and now I just installed 2.11 and it crashes on startup. Ouch! 😛
@podium.exe wrote:
AppName: podium.exe AppVer: 2.11.0.0 ModName: ntdll.dll
ModVer: 5.1.2600.5512 Offset: 0000100b
I haven’t gone back to 2.10 to see if it will crash now too, but I doubt it, and I’m busy so I will try it later if this hasn’t been caught and fixed already.
druidI know solo means one, but I thought it was pretty common to expect pressing two solo buttons to both enable the other.
However, I have a solution for you. If you hold down shift and click the solo button, it does as you want. I didn’t even know this until I tried it just now. My recommendation is, before you assume it can’t do something, run Podium and muck around with the features that you want to try, and try shift, or alt, or control keys, and any combination of them, just to be sure that the function isn’t already there. 😛
druidWell, obviously, it’s because if you want to edit one and have the changes reflected in them all (say you made a drum clip, and then decided you needed a different rhythm but had already copied them all across your track), you can do that.
Can you imagine changing your mind, and editing every single one, along with volume and panning, to reflect the exact same changes? Or just editing one, and having all the phantoms do it at the same time, not needing to be edited?
If you never, and I mean NEVER EVER edit afterwards, then you won’t need such a feature, but there’s still no difference. But if you edit after, I’d be willing to bet you will eventually run into the need for this (if not a while later, then rather soon).
edit:
Wait, I’m going to assume you mean like a clip or whatever you call it, right? Not an ENTIRE sequence, surely?
druiddruidYou don’t need dedicated machines, as long as you know more or less what you’re doing with the machine. Stripping Windows down is mostly a myth, apparently. There are gains, but they are negligible, at least with today’s systems. But there are always people who buy into it like it will double their power or at least add 25%, when it won’t, unless their software was setup poorly in the first place.
In my experience. And this is only with XP (Pro, to be precise). I cannot speak for other operating systems so easily.
The whole scare factor for needing anti-viral programs is really overblown and driven mostly by paranoia. The only people that need them are people who are like kleptomaniacs, except for downloading rather than stealing. That, and not really understanding that you should not open attachments on ANY emails even from people you know unless you know what they are.
I mean, even I have one installed, after saying all that; I can’t remember the last time I ran it, and I sure don’t let it run unless I tell it to. 😛
druidbfloyd: 512 should be fine, but then it depends how complex the VSTs you are using are and also how old your system is. It’s really down to trial. I assume you’re using 44.1kHz? You may have already stated, I’m not sure.. If not, you should at least for the time being. Often when I’m sound manipulating I’ll use 96kHz, for clarity, but if I’m just laying down notes or playing real-time (I talk like I do heaps of this when I don’t :lol:) I’ll switch to 44.1kHz.
I’ve used, with an older system and worse sound card, 1024 for latency before. It’s not awful, but that’s also down to opinion. You should still try it, especially with older systems. It may help you.
If you want to test CPU, and numbers of tracks, why don’t you do this (if you haven’t already)? Make one track. Run it through a synth set to a complex patch. Make a quick melody/riff. Check CPU usage while it plays, maybe both in Podium and task manager if you want. Duplicate that track (not sure if you can do that directly; you might need to create a new track and insert VST again – or maybe track templates? I haven’t used these things yet so I’m a little .. out of date :oops:). Copy the MIDI notes but change their octave up or down. Check CPU usage again. Keep duplicating and have a look for yourself what affect on CPU usage it has; you may find that 2 tracks are 40% and 4 are 80%, or you might not. The best way is to try for yourself!
Hell, I’d do just that on my system if I weren’t preparing for a new university semester (orientation week, ugh).
amused: Did you try Reaper in synchronous mode, instead of anticipative, to see if that solved the issue you had with it? I’ve never used Reaper, it just seemed like an obvious question to ask. 😳
druid@adlaius wrote:
I’d use a MIDI controller, not a mouse. And with the Reaper settings, my VSTs all respond to my MIDI keyboard with no discernible delay.
@Zynewave wrote:
If it’s an instrument, then notes you play via the editor keyboard will be delayed by 200 ms.
Again, I don’t get it. Can you click a melody in a VST editor keyboard quickly and accurately enough that this matters at all?? (Note: if yes, I am officially alarmed 😉 )
I’m not sure about all this, but I would think your MIDI keyboard should also have the same delay. If it is pre-rendering, for instance, 200ms then it should also take 200ms for your MIDI keyboard notes to come through. That is definitely NOT low latency. Unless, when you are controlling track/s with a MIDI keyboard, Reaper then sets the track/s to not pre-render. While I don’t really see a problem with this, it DOES mean that when you record a track, Reaper needs to move the recording back the amount of delay of pre-rendering.
So either you ARE getting latnecy with your MIDI keyboard, or Reaper has disabled pre-rendering wherever you play it, unless I’m missing something.
It isn’t that bad of an idea actually, but maybe there would be problems with the lack of synchronising between tracks. Perhaps some kind people (especially Frits) could provide a practical theoretical example of a situation and consequence of the “anticipative” method. Not just its effects but perhaps a real life nuisance that annoys some people.
I’d probably use such a method, based only on my current understanding, but I have to admit that tweaking knobs, via MIDI keyboard or the user interface, having a delay would bother me some, tweaking becomes more of a guess and trial rather than a smooth test (not exactly, but still somewhat). I know you said you don’t notice a difference, but then if you were to only use one track and Reaper disables anticipative because of MIDI control, and you’re using something so CPU intensive, you will just have the same problem that synchronous would. Not a real situation probably, but that means there are still circumstances where both sides are equal. If Reaper wanted to be thorough of that method, wouldn’t it pre-render EVERYTHING? Not practical of course, but I can’t help feel there would be problems pre-rendering some and not other.
As I said, perhaps someone can discuss real-world examples of where anticipative causes real troubles, and what those troubles are.
druidInteresting… AVG 8.0 started including service/s that you can’t really disable unless you want to re-enable them each time you want to scan. Sure it doesn’t scan non-stop, but you can’t disable those services without making it unusable. Quite annoying actually, but I sitll use it.
I don’t believe I have any Podium issues though. Perhaps AVG is either less thorough or just ignores it? Hm…
druidTry and do the same that you did in the other instance; disable the anti-virus (and check for other running programs that you might not need running) and test to see if that helps Podium.
May not help, buuuutt… It’s worth a try!