I’m so sorry to hear this. I hope the community finds a way to become more welcoming. I don’t know if this is some or all of what you’re thinking about, but I still get sick/mad thinking about the level of entitlement on display when Substation got open-sourced, and I’m sorry that the delayed-open-source approach, which I thought was brilliant, hasn’t taken off/met Andrew’s approval.
Oh my, I hear you about the day job I wish you, me, and everyone in that situation a good path back from burnout. Hang in there and take good care of yourself!
On a general note regarding “paid” open-source modules and keeping the library growing, I thought (from the outside) that the fundraiser model worked incredibly well, and I’m surprised that there hasn’t been one of those in quite some time.
One thing I find peculiar is, Squinky is the only person (who I’ve noticed, since I started using VCV Rack at the end of last year) who has consistently posted comments that aim at keeping up a very nuanced atmosphere of this specific “developers leaving” thing, usually in an implied or somehow vaguely negative tone. I have come to the conclusion there is at the very least some sort of general disgruntlement on their part, which gets expressed in this manner - that is, trying to uphold some sort of air of uncertainty and second guessing and so forth, maybe even trying to make developers consider leaving, even though on the surface the comments usually seem constructive and genuinely concerned/interested.
There have been times where the aim shows more distinctly, even though it usually stays vague enough. Still, first time I noticed this explicitly was at the end of last year, when Heapdump (the developer of the Lindenberg Research modules) posted: “I am still thinking about a commercial release; it grew over the years and after more than 2300 commits and a lot of hours of work it will be just fair to the developer. We will see ” and Squinky flat-out replied: “Or you could abandon VCV development. That’s what I did, and have not regretted it yet.” No smileys, no vague context, just actually urging someone to consider quitting.
Then, much more recently, in that same thread without Heapdump’s comments to that effect, Squinky commented, “I get the feeling that, like a lot of us, he just isn’t that interested any more. Seems like most of the OG module devs are either gone or very quiet now” - even though the idea of considering quitting was their own suggestion in the first place. To this Heapdump promptly assured, “I am still an enthusiastic developer for VCV and will stay that way” ; anyway, this is just one example of trying to nudge things in that direction, first very explicitly, and then in a more vague tone afterwards.
Nevertheless, I feel some of this has resulted in important and constructive discussion, and that’s good. Still, can’t shake the impression that there’s also an intention to actually keep a certain uncertainty going, (usually) in a nuanced enough manner.
I can’t speak for @Squinky or rule out possible hidden intentions but I’m personally unconvinced that he’s using subtle rhetorical cues to try to disrupt the VCV developer ecosystem.
This topic is an important one. Perhaps it is misnamed, but there needs to be a mechanism for dialog and feedback between developers and VCV… unless we developers just do not matter.
Open dialog is always good. There is always room for improvement in any organization or community. It is important to keep dialog respectful and civil. That applies to me also.
That’s an important role! And I don’t think you mean ill by your comment–but, objectively, check the logs:
Tons of helpful, specific comments to multiple users in the last few weeks alone. Besides which, Banquo didn’t develop a killer suite of free, open-source modules.
I know it’s not a ShapeMaster thread but just to take up this point…
ShapeMaster WILL give correct output from the start. Unlike a clock multiplier that needs to wait (and therefore may not output) until it has figured out what the BPM is (often from a slow 1X or 4X clock), ShapeMaster will start playing the cycle as soon as it is triggered. If it has been ‘pre-synced’ by a previous run, then there will be no initial figuring out of BPM needed. But even if it has not, then SM will start running anyway (playing all the ratchets from the start) at default 120 BPM and figure out the correct BPM within the time between the first 2-3 pulses of the default 48 ppqn clock. A good BPM estimate is made within a 1/4 note divided by 48 which is a 1/192nd note and a solid lock within a 1/4 note divided by 24 which is a 1/96th note.
Unless ratchets are being done at faster than 1/96th notes (which is not impossible but fairly unlikely) then it’s going to be correct even if not pre-synced. Even if they are faster than that they will still play and if the 2nd ratchet in a series of say 1/128th notes is slightly out of time, it’s all happening so fast I would challenge anyone to notice that timing discrepancy.
“Ha! I could hear your 2nd 1/128th note ratchet was at 130BPM not 132BPM!”
On the off chance you CAN hear a slight timing difference in the 2nd 1/128th note ratchet, you can just set SM to use a 96ppqn or 192ppqn clock instead and your problem will be solved
Its not a shapemaster thread, and also not a clock thread or a surge thread, but as you know @steve in the upcoming surge xt modules I’ve wired clock so users have an option of a quarter note pulse or a BPM CV level to set tempo. The later has at most one sample latency under change and works quite nicely. Just wire the BPM output from CLOCKED to it and voila.
They keep coming up because steve pyer and I keep teasing them. Folks with the tiniest bit of sleuthing can find binaries of the alpha to run easily even.
The polyphonic ones are polyphonic. So all the VCOs, the filters, and wave shapers.
The project is coming well. We have all the VCOs Filters and Waveshapers basically done; we have the DSP for all the effects bound; we build and run all three platforms. The graphics look great. This year. If I could attach MP3s to the forum I would have shared a sound file here actually! But I can’t.
there you go. 100% of the DSP (VCOs, filters, FX) there are from the new rack modules. Use sequencers mixers gates and envelopes and stuff from the other rack modules of course, but entirely surge DSP end to end.
Block size is between 1 and 8 samples depending. The filters for instance are 0 latency but the modulation is every 8 samples. The waveshaper is 0 latency instant modulation. The oscillators generate 8 samples at a time so have a similar modulation Down sampling. The fx mostly have an 8 block latency but the delay does not so you can temposync it.
The old ones had a big unwieldy mega module and it was one of the things which was worst about them with big switches and difficult dynamic faceplates. Targeted modules seemed a better design.
I wish you, me, and everyone in that situation a good path back from burnout. Hang in there and take good care of yourself!