2.5 months, anything new?

Continuing the discussion from Rack development blog:

It’s been over 2 months since there’s been any announcements in the development blog. I’d like to start designing a few modules but I’m reluctant to given the ever impending release. I know there have been threads started before asking for an ETA that you’ve redirected here but as VCV is largely sucessful due to all the free work of developers doing so out of passion I was hoping for the sake of everyone’s sanity you might be able to at least say “hopefully by June2021” or something like that.


I developed modules for 0.6, then 1.0, next… I don’t worry about it too much.


Dug up from an ancient post from Andrew:

Very rough timeline:

  • summer-fall 2019: Lots and lots of new Eurorack and VCV plugins.
  • fall 2019: VCV Library website, minor Rack v2 features.
  • fall-winter 2019-2020: Rack v2. VST2 fork. Maybe VST3/AU/AAX.

This tells me one of two things:

  • Software development is impossible to timeline, or;
  • Something has perhaps, gone wrong.

I suppose there are other possibilities, but I am a born pessimist. :slight_smile:

Based on the dev log, I actually suspect the software dev has gone fine. maybe something has proven to be a bigger issue than expected so hard to deliver (like multiple audio interfaces or making it so other devs are still open to use external libraries in their modules when in a VST, etc.) though my stronger suspicion is that it’s a business hold up, that there’s something in regards to advertising, copyright, licencing, etc. that’s proving to be a much larger mess than anticipated or may be a drain of funds for need of a lawyer or something. That is, I suspect the hold up is non-technical. There’s also the whole Covid thing going on, he may be trying to wait it out at this point under the suspicion that he can go to more trade shows etc. to show it off. I’m not sure about though, because I’d think he’d want to get in on that sweet, sweet stimulus money.

The only thing I miss is VCV Rack as a VST aka “Rack for DAWs”.

In some ways, I’m actually thankful that development has taken as long as it has. When (specifically) Rack for DAWs was announced, I hadn’t really learned to use VCV. Because of the announcement I thought “I’m definitely going to use this, so I’ll learn it now”. Now, of course I’m hooked and have learned so much figuring out solutions like zero latency recording into ableton, and two way midi control between the different programs. If it was just a plug-in, I don’t think I would have become as infatuated with VCV as I am now. I am constantly inspired by Racks flexibility rather than its limitations (Which sums up every other piece of music software I have…with the possible exception of Reaper)


This is probably the biggest reason I want it finally come out (besides being able to dev without fear of wasting my time) - I totally can do those things with various virtual audio interfaces and other workarounds, but it’s extraordinarily annoying, usually has a non-insignificant CPU overhead, and makes some of how I have my controllers mapped very awkward.

On Linux (I use arch btw), I use Jack Audio so all the midi and audio routing is flexible and reasonable, but all the fustercluck of workarounds that need to be done to make it work well on Windows makes it more work than I really want to deal with. The easy answer is “well just use Linux then” but I find the ease of VSTs working and better DAW support in Windows makes it worthwhile for me to reboot for audio. (VSTs though Wine is still pretty awful)

:grin: true arch user

1 Like

The beer that $10 will buy is going to taste fantastic :grin:


I agree that it was not easy (I use Windows). I actually ended up buying a second soundcard. Rack uses one and Ableton, the other. But now that I have templates built in both Ableton and Rack, it just works every time. Yes, I will buy Rack for DAW’s when it’s available but I am thankful for what I have right now.

It’s a wonder you bother to put out new modules!

not going to fight inspiration striking, but not encouraging it either :smiley:

1 Like

Agreed. A business/legal holdup sounds likely.

Are there any unofficial v2.0 releases being developed by other people? Just asking

2.0 code is currently unreleased afaik so that’s not possible as only Andrew has the code. We would have seen builds by now otherwise.

1 Like

I’m also getting kinda desperate. checking every now and then just to see that there’s nothing new. and also no updates on what’s going on or why it’s taking it’s time. maybe he’s gotten tired of people ‘demanding’ things from him. still it would be nice to know what’s the holdup.

I’ve put vcv aside some time ago as I’m wanted to focus on other programs until it’s available for dass. but it took soo much longer than expected and i would like to finally integrate it in my setup.

have the clock stability issues been resolved? bc then I could give it another try, put in the energy and route everything the way I need it setup with Jack. as i am especially interested rhythmic stuff it just doesn’t make sense when there is a clock drift that can’t be controlled all the time…


Midi clock can be a bit jittery, but if you use an audio pulse clock it is rock solid.

1 Like

I understand that developers are getting antsy (although I’m fairly sure its already been announced, that porting modules from 1.0 to 2.0 is supposedly kept simple. only answers part of the concerns though, I know.). Users on the other hand… still get VCV and a few thousand modules for free. As Vega pointed out, the issue could be dependent on a third-party. If some major DAW needs to make changes on their code or certain licences do not cover third-party implementation and have to be renegotiated… shit like that can take ages to work out - provided they can be worked out. In my experience (webdesign, CI, editorial) two out of ten times being “done” is just someone elses cue to get started.

& regardless of the reason for the delay: VCV integration into major DAWs is incredibly bad for business. The speed in which module quality and design advance paints a bleak future for alot of consumer-focused software companies. Doesn’t exactly make support for VCV implementation a priority. Its hard to predict how much damage a VCV VST will do to the market. A 50/50 chance is big enough to task your crisis management. Just sayin’… huge chunk of the VST market is one-function-modules in curated bundles. Doubt that anyone besides the users is happy about the development. (and likely that a lot of professionals will try to make things harder for VCV - if not already then in the near future)

Que sera, sera. + until then: patience.

That entire second paragraph is odd to me. VCV will obviously make a killing on brining Rack to DAWs but I don’t thing any DAW sees VCV being a VST as a bad thing, with the one exception of maybe Reason, and even then that’s doubtful. It’s not like Reaktor, Voltage Modular, or VeeSeeVee VST haven’t already been a thing.

The ‘VCV might be bad for VST companies’ business’ is a new view for me, had not really thought of that. Don’t see that directly harming the DAW’s tho? maybe except for NI, who are also very big in the VST business (although I don’t think Rack for DAW and Maschine are a logical pairing).

I’d still hope we could do more together. VCVrack really is a community project. So far it seems as though the actual core code is being built by Andrew alone, right? Why not crowdfund rack 4 DAW and let some of the (obviously very skilled and creative) module builders do some paid work to progress stuff?

Off course it could also be a legal thing, in which case I don’t know shit. If DAW integration is indeed the problem, you could also argue to release 2.0 separately and wait with Rack for DAW until you’ve got that smoothed out. Anyway, a lot of blabbering, while I don’t have the faintest clue what’s going on. It’d sure be nice to see if we could help, is all I’m trying to say…