Can I assume the policy you were regarding to has something to do with a non profit policy? I must be honest here. I would not buy a Meander module if it was avail for a M1 vcv rack version, but, if something similar, smaller, and simpler, was avail as stock for the vcv M1 version, it would certainly makes me happy. I use only free DAWS since M1. Garage Band and Digital Performer Lite 11. Reason I use since its inception. I’m sorry that there is not probably an M1 development program, as it might be an issue, or a cost not programmed. Probably a better investment than Ableton in the long run. 20w average consumption is great stuff. Tnx for sharing. Cheers.
PS: I have many paid Reason Players. Modules that plays with Midi. It’s an healthy ecosystem. Meander could be a cool Player. Never thought of making a Rack extension? Being Reason An RPP it would automatically run as VST2 and perhaps also VST3 and M1 in the future.
I’m sorry, but I do not understand your questions. Meander is free and will always remain free. Whether it will ever work on M1 is up to VCV. Maybe you were referring to my Meander for Windows application? If so, that is unreleased and ancient code from a different era. In some real regards, it was a a DAW
I’ve used most DAWs at one time or another. Yesterday I went ahead and subscribed to Bitwig Studio 16 Track. But, I got into VCV as a modular emulation and I really do not want to work in a DAW, but I can certainly understand why some would want to do that.
Likewise, I do not want to make Meander commercial, but understand if some developers want to offer commercial plugins and modules.
Sorry, if I didn’t answer your questions. Feel free to ask again and I will answer if I can.
Hopefully VCV makes the needed changes to get proper M1 binaries soon.
In the mean time it is possible to manually build Rack and Meander module (as many others) for M1 native and x64 at the same time (aka “universal build”). We have your module on the other side of the pond
I don’t know if using the term “proper” is appropriate here. I think you mean you would like VCV to prioritize an ARM native port? Small point, I realize, but calling the current VCV “improper” is kind of trolling.
Whereas I don’t want to go too far down this OT direction, your port of Meander is based on my May V2.019 release. My current release in the VCV library is V2.0.23 and I am getting ready to release V2.0.24 . What is your strategy for updates?
Sorry but still relying on rosetta2 at this point is kinda improper in my view. For things that involve realtime audio, emulation should not be considered optimal in any way.
I know the effort that it takes to build things for ARM, and on macOS this is quite minimal. macOS forces memory alignment, so unless you go out of your way to pack data structs in an odd fashion, SIGBUS related crashes (like it happens as-is with Rack on 32bit systems) do not happen there.
For building, it is mostly a matter of tweaking the compiler arguments since clang on macOS supports multiple -arch flags, side-stepping the whole dual-build-combine-with-lipo that some projects do.
So yes, considering it is just straight out possible to do these builds, and quite a long time as passed without them, I call the universal ones “proper”. Wouldnt literally call the current ones improper builds, it is not black and white, but they are surely not optimal.
Just updating the submodule reference does it, unless there is some stuff that changed in the widget code or svg while there is auto-dark/light-mode in place.
Since yours has an official dark mode, no such changes/tweaks are needed.
Just pushed the update now btw, so will be part of next release as usual.
Wont link to it here as to not derail the conversation more.
Something to note for that other side, there are automated tests done on all the modules for memory corruption and out-of-bounds access and writes. So if new versions have faulty behaviour we catch it before a release is made.
Given that Vcv pro version is currently a pay-to-own ecosystem, I imagine that making Meander compliant with the pro version, which may or may not include up to date M1 version, would qualify the devs, in some measure, to be an active part of the project, and automatically, since as customers we are supposed to contribute to the system, that would make you eligible for a retribution of some kind. That is the case in the reason ecosystem with the Rack Extensions. Reason as a company can ask some devs to make modules for the stock Reason. Panda is one of such devs that shifted to make both its RE modules, and stock modules, like the Poly sequencer, just to name one.
I do not know the details of the contracts between the two parts, but it has been a winning policy ever since, and I hope something on these lines will be adopted by Vcv in the near future. My question was on the policies you think are pro or against the interest of the community of Vcv, tnx.
PS. Reason is also a free environment, once the initial pay to own barrier is set…
many devs can choose to make free modules. There is plenty of free Rack Extension for the Reason ecosystem, which do not receive any kind of retribution, but if Reason Studio decides some of those modules are valuable to become stock devices, and as a pre-requisite those are in needs of updates, it may steps in…
I’m still not following what you are saying. Meander already is VCV Pro compliant. It works fine. In fact, all modules that are submitted to the library must work in V2 Pro VST to be in the V2 library. Whereas VCV Rack Pro is a pay-to-own ecosystem, all of the free and opensource modules are available in VCV Pro.
I personally have zero interest in making money off of Meander.
I once asked about making modules that only run in free and not in pro. People thought that that was a terrible idea. Which of course made me more interested in the short term, but I didn’t do it.
