I’d like you to reconsider the lack of ongoing ‘full’ support for Bridge through the v1 lifecycle of Rack. The primary reason that I believe this to be an important action, is that you could end up forcing artists towards VeeSeeVST during the v1 lifecycle.
I’m aware that there are workarounds with Jack or MIDI loopback utilities but many users find these approaches less than satisfactory.
I have no argument with the premise that Bridge is less than ideal too, but to break the existing functionality for the duration of v1 builds is even less satisfactory.
As I mentioned in another thread, it appears that it’s the new polyphonic functionality in v1 that has broken the MIDI aspect of Bridge in v1 (audio still functions perfectly) and maybe fixing this is a more complex task than it appears to be to an outsider, but I think it would be best if you at least attempted to find a solution.
I’m sure the thought crossed your mind that a partially functioning Bridge will build demand for the $99 VST version of Rack that’s introduced in v2 but by then many artists may have moved over to VeeSeeVST and I’m sure that’s not an ideal solution for you either.
At the very least, I think you should make a clear statement about Bridge through the v1 lifecycle (if fixing MIDI within Bridge is too complex a task). It’s always better to manage expectations ahead of a bad user experience as it makes the target audience more empathetic to the challenge. I also think you have a responsibility to those developers that have invested a considerable amount of time building a reasonable commercial offering (e.g. Vult) for the Rack ecosystem, which in turn increases the value of the Rack brand.
What I ask here I ask respectfully, it’s not a case ‘throwing my toys out of the pram’. I already have a workaround for the current state of affairs, but I’m aware that Rack is used by many non-technical artists (this is Rack’s greatest success IMO) and breaking things for 3-6 months might prove to be too much of a hurdle.
As I mentioned before in the Development section posting (last weekend), I tested Bridge with the v1 development build you posted in Ableton Live, Reaper and FL Studio on Windows 10. FL Studio is completely broken but I suspect that’s a historic problem as Bridge doesn’t work with 0.6.2c either but in both Ableton Live 10.0.6 and the latest build of Reaper, Bridge only transmits audio between Rack and Host. Midi is completely broken, I have a wide array of Midi devices that I’ve tested but the problem is the same in all instances.
Bridge is fully functional with 0.6.2c in both Ableton Live and Reaper (both MIDI and audio streams function as they should).
With regards to Polyphonic MIDI being the problem, I probably should have phrased that better. What I meant to say was that I suspected that Polyphonic MIDI may be the source of the problem as that’s been a major change between 0.6.2c and v1.
I’ve gone to the effort of testing 3 different windows hosts, surely that warrants an investigation of the issue I’m reporting, or does this rank as a ‘support question’?
I’m trying to help in reporting this issue, but I’m begging to wish I hadn’t bothered as this is the second occasion this week where you’ve dismissed the reported issue altogether.
I understand fully how MIDI works right down to the SysEx level, I’ve been using it since the mid 80’s!
I was suggesting that maybe the changes brought about by polyphonic capabilities in Rack v1 has had a knock-on effect of breaking the MIDI aspect of the Bridge plugin.
I’ll state once again, that I took the time to test three separate hosts on Windows 10 and Bridge fails to communicate MIDI between host and Rack. When using 0.6.2c, Bridge works perfectly with both Ableton and Reaper.
oh ok i see now. Well, the rack vst should be there for V2, which if i remember well should come out in not too much time. I guess midi will work perfectly at that time. Andrew said ‘‘Bridge never was a good idea’’. It’s true that it’s a weird thing compared to standards in the music industry. (Even if i liked bridge and sometimes used it) I can understand that Andrew doesn’t want to continue working on it and instead will work on a better alternative
That’s something I never understood… how can an easy way to connect any DAW to a standalone software ever not be a good idea? From what I read here and there, there are also no plans to create any alternative. (And no, a VST version is not an alternative, it’s something completely different)
Bridge was a great idea, but it is – according to @Vortico – an unmaintainable hack. It never worked properly for sync.
I for one have had good luck putting together patches, recording the audio and importing it into Ableton Live. It’s not the same workflow, but VCVRack isn’t an adjunct to DAWs, it’s an instrument – a meta-instrument to perform with.
Bridge is more like Rewire, and I never got Rewire working properly either.
I’m new to VCV Rack, but I’d consider DAW integration a vital aspect for my workflow. Right now I’m using Softube for both sound generation (synthesis) and FX processing (say running a drum track through Rings and Clouds). I’d like to use VCVRack in the same way and really like this project.
I don’t want to be in standalone Rack, nor record in Rack because I love working in Logic and building songs with traditional electric and acoustic instruments and would highly value being able to integrate VCVRack into my creative process. Right now I’m just auditioning modules only. If I could open it up in Logic as an AU, it would become a fantastic wealth of inspiration for song creation.
Bridge does not work for me (have not got Logic to recognize it yet…), and I have no opinion if that is the solution, but only offer a humble request to make DAW integration as an VST and AU a part of this great project.
I understand you wanting Rack to fit into your existing workflow. That will happen, soon enough with Rack 2.0.
Until then, if you have Softube Modular, you’re pretty well covered for working that way. There’s an overlap between Softube Modular and VCVRack.
I also think exploring alternative workflows isn’t a bad thing. You’re rather forced to with VCVRack since proper DAW integration isn’t there yet.
The Softube Modular thing points out a basic difference between Open Source and closed source applications: You can pay for a more polished solution, or you can figure out the ways the free solution can work for you.
VCVRack is perhaps the best example in the audio world of an Open Source project being successful: Thousands of users, active user community, loads of tutorials available, many 3rd party developers contributing. But no, there’s no productized, robust DAW integration yet.
Fine its a free and open market.
i frequently use rack,and i liked the fact that i could use it with reason and live.
i have bought many modules.however the direction this is going is not to my liking.
i like vcv i like making things in vcv.i will probably end up grudgingly buying it.
not because of the money but the principal of it.