Separate the libraries maybe?

Every dev needs a saw, :slight_smile:

and a hammer!

2 Likes

Submarine Audio Workstation?

3 Likes

Agreed, we have definitely strayed off topic.

1 Like

It might not be public but there often is a “first line of defence” - many devs send to a small group of testers before they push to the library.

1 Like

I should probably open a new topic in that case :grin:

2 Likes

Hopefully long-term, VCV would have the funds to pay people to do this job. But somethings got to happen in this regard otherwise EVERYONE is permanently in the dev ring…

1 Like

some interesting points being raised here…

I completely sympathise with @synthi point that ‘pro’ users were being offered ‘profession support’, and somehow believe this included 3rd party modules.

generally paying for software will result in that ‘entitlement’ as well, … and I think that effect, has perhaps been underestimated / miscommunicated.

the issue here is, new users (*) may not understand the dividing line (as long term users) between 3rd parties and vcv,. theoretically this is a non-issue, if I go complain to Ableton about a VST, they are going to clear that up pretty fast - hosts are not held responsible for plugin, nor vice versa. (and yeah, I know there are grey areas at time… but generally users understand there are two parties at play)

this is well understood by electronic musicians, but if we look at the number of posts we have on this forum (e.g. modules not working from v1->v2) it shows that message is not clearly understood. … perhaps new users do not see modules quite like plugins - if not , why not?

however, I completely disagree that module developers should somehow decide, what hosts (vst/standalone) , should or should not exist… it should be a free ‘standard’ (even free of vcv !) the reason VCV has been so successful (over other virtual modulars) is the lack of barriers, and openness… suddenly now changing that ethos, I suspect would be detrimental to the whole ecosystem.


(*) lets remember, many new users may have never previously visited this forum, in fact, many possibly never will… so see none of the discussions, many of us take for granted, as ‘truth’ I was reminded the other day, generally, how low forum participation is on any product (hardware or software)

2 Likes

I am always warry when someone says “should”. Is there a way to express that you are thinking more tangibly?

VST plugins are accessible through many different Hosts/DAWs. Rack plugins are only accessible through Rack. The relationship therefore appears much closer.

Also you don’t see really Ableton primarily marketing their platform on the fact you can access thousands of VST plugins.

1 Like

Yes - but I think it’s become clear that is not enough to prevent issues now. There are just so many different permutations of Platforms, DAWs, OSs etc.

Of course ultimately devs “vote with their feet”. But that doesn’t mean the present business model is perfect. Maybe it could be made better? I think that is the “meta topic” of this thread.

Are you saying that the present business model is perfect? Or are you saying that it is bad for people to speculate about improving it?

Ableton, not particularly… but thats kind of my point.

if you create a free/open source VST, you then don’t turn around and say “I don’t want it to run in any commercial daw” … the VST standard is (now ;)) an open standard! the vst api has benefited the industry as a whole, not just Steinberg (who created it) , opened up more choice for musicians… we can chose our host… not just use Cubase :wink:

this is kind of where I see the vcv module api ideally being situated , virtual/digital modular is becoming an important new ‘tool’, and we need an api that enables that openness / interoperability.

so I think, the more choices we have in hosts, commercial or free, the better. not only for users, but also for module developers.

edit: I recognise the above is a bit ‘idealistic’ (or wishful thinking) since at present we only have one host (or two if you consider the vst as a second ‘commercial host’), but its theoretically possible to create alternative hosts… could someone create an open source vst host, I think so ? no?

:rofl:

1 Like

This is a test comment to see if the one I have sitting on “Awaiting Approval” is because of some word list

edit: oh my god it is. I’m beyond annoyed now.

@Vega hang on a sec, let’s keep it calm. Yes there are some word list. I’m trying to sort it now.

1 Like

This is exactly the attitude that made Aria leave: “Take it or leave it” and I think is unhealthy for this community and VCV as a company especially considering both that Rack itself is FOSS and people have taken it literally (both in MiRack and Cardinal) and that, as previously mentioned in this thread, it’s pretty clear that even VCV acknowledges the large module count and contributions of developers add value to the platform.

Almost every dev I’ve talked to is already fed up for other reasons - most notably the poor documentation of the API. There’s a threshold of frustration that devs are willing to deal with, and a paid variant costing me time and leading to complaints when I don’t see a dime of the proceeds from that and I’m expected to test on umpteen different platforms is pushing that line.

4 Likes

i shouldnt get involved with this stuff cos its just weird. posts deleted. i’ll stick to updates from now on. enjoy yourselves.

And this is exactly what gaslighting leads too… :roll_eyes:

3 Likes

I thought what you said was absolutely fine… you expressed your opinion and it seemed a pretty straight-forward one.

2 Likes

interesting, how do you think this should be handled? as a vst developer you have the same struggles, though you choose what platforms to target… though you still get a ton of support calls on different daws on that same platform, that you may not use.

perhaps its growing pains… you mentioned before a more prominent donation button… then IF the vst (for example) is bringing in a lot more users, at least would mean (potentially) more donations?

1 Like