SynthMakerrl ·
...all together now:
s d k ! S D K ! ESS DEEE KAY! ESS DEEE KAY!
for a better tomorrow.....
From the original SynthMaker forum (2004–2014), with its members’ names and dates.
infuzion ·
LOL How many threads are there about SDKs? BTW Lua <> SDK.
rl ·
> SDK <> LUA
I know. I want both!
Nu Audio Science ·
How come i'm right at the back in that pic ?
NAS
Acrobat ·
Nu Audio Science wrote: How come i'm right at the back in that pic ?
NAS
I think mister rl did it well on purpouse:
- given that you enjoy wrestling, you're supposed to be a Conservative,
- on the contrary, the penguin's on the left because, by his own words, he's not the "credit-card" type of of guy... hi hi hi 😀 😀 😀
+1 for the development kit! 😀
Nu Audio Science ·
Im probably the least conservative person ever hahahahahahaha
NAS
infuzion ·
rl wrote: > SDK <> LUA
I know. I want both!
SDK 1st, then a 3rd party can hack in LUA.
Tom7777 ·
Im just curious about something would a SDK based module be the same as to one that was coded in SM and then locked if the module locking was added?
What does a SDK offer that code modules wouldn't does it have more coding possibiltys like midi functions etc?
I know that SDKs are used to make addon modules like with SE so you get 3rd party modules but are they more efficiant and option based than what you can currently do within SM atm? Hehe sorry im a beginner with stuff like that so im curious to the possibilitys they bring 🙂
aliasant ·
SDK = Software Development Kit ??
Am I missing something here? ( as usual)
Tom7777 ·
Yeah it does but in SE's case people use it to make 3rd party addon modules so im guessing for SM thats what it would make also? Im curious as to what everyone that codes wants one so much for as im guessing theres some benifits over the current code modules but i dunno.
Nu Audio Science ·
No in SE the SDK is a module SDK not a direct SDK I'm sure those that are asking for an SDK me included are asking for an application wide SDK This would allow people to not only code there own modules which would be much more powerful than the code module anyway because C++ offers many more options to a coder but also allow people to create new additions to the main application itself 😉
NAS
rl ·
A little explanation:
When using SM often I stumble over simple restrictions here and there.
For example. I have built a SYSEX dump program for one of my synthesizers. Now it would be great if I could save/load that dumps as standard SYSEX files to exchange them with SoundDiver. This can't be done yet. Or imagine I would like to save a wave as a wave file. Or read the loop points of a wave file. Or read the samples of a SF2 file. Now I could write feature requests and wait patiently until the develpers - which obviously have buckets of other things on their list - like the FL studio project - might implement that accomponied by my frequent bumps and whining in the forum - or, having an SDK I could build that on my own. (Just see how long it took between the first request for a iFFT component and the actual release (great module BTW))
Re: LUA: I really liked the LUA preview presented in the most recent SMX version (which was Dec 2006!!). Any news here?
Tom7777 ·
K that would be addon modules then right like i thought, im sure what NAS said is also possible but im not sure how that would work unless they were .dll's which added more menu options etc. Gets my vote then if some people would share the new modules as i agree it would take a bit of work off the huge list 🙂
Acrobat ·
rl wrote: Or imagine I would like to save a wave as a wave file. Or read the loop points of a wave file. Or read the samples of a SF2 file.
this 3 things - necessary to build a good sampler!
infuzion ·
Tom7777 wrote: I'm just curious about something would a SDK based module be the same as to one that was coded in SM and then locked if the module locking was added? What does a SDK offer that code modules wouldn't does it have more coding possibiltys like midi functions etc?
I would assume a SDK-module would be a tad faster than a primitive-module, since you'd have to deal with less of SM's overhead. Plus SDKs could add in extra graphic abilities not in SM (SVG, integrated 3d, etc), more MIDI like you said, more direct file formats... anything that can be done with a normal C++ compiler, as opposed being limited with SM tools.
Acrobat wrote: rl wrote: Or imagine I would like to save a wave as a wave file. Or read the loop points of a wave file. Or read the samples of a SF2 file.
this 3 things - necessary to build a good sampler!
Agreed, or read Wavelab/Ableton Live files... but this should be a different thread 😉
aliasant ·
OKOk.
This would really make SM powerful
But
It would also mean that Jorge and Malc loses control over it. There would be a shitload of new modules circulating and many of them if not most will be poorly written and buggy. I know many modules will be superb and I would love to have more specified modules made of things I use a lot. And I would also love to get some of the stuff you guys will write. But there are a shitload of goofs out there with much less experiance that will code these modules. They might try to sell them or spread them in other ways. THey will do this because they think they have made something cool. They will be the ones screwing it up fo Jorge and Malc. Synthmaker will have to deal with everything that comes from that. Bug reports on these modules. Complaints and all that .
For this to work there has to be something that protects SM itself.
infuzion ·
aliasant wrote: It would also mean that Jorge and Malc loses control over it. There would be a shitload of new modules circulating and many of them if not most will be poorly written and buggy.
I agree, but then does Ableton lose control of Live when they allow VSTs to be used? Or does Microsoft lose out if they allow other companies to write Windows programs? With a SDK, SM would take a step up on being more of a platform, rather than an enclosed system.
I think SE has some buggy modules, but some 3rd party modules really make SE a good platform IMHO.
aliasant ·
infuzion wrote: aliasant wrote: It would also mean that Jorge and Malc loses control over it. There would be a shitload of new modules circulating and many of them if not most will be poorly written and buggy.
I agree, but then does Ableton lose control of Live when they allow VSTs to be used? Or does Microsoft lose out if they allow other companies to write Windows programs? With a SDK, SM would take a step up on being more of a platform, rather than an enclosed system.
I think SE has some buggy modules, but some 3rd party modules really make SE a good platform IMHO.
I agree on all except the Microsoft thing .
They do suffer a bit from all the crap, viruses and other garbage out there but of course there are some good apps written for Microsoft system as well. Reaper. And Synthmaker. Dont really know any other.. =) Am I a Mac fan boy or not??
Neptune ·
aliasant wrote: OKOk.
This would really make SM powerful
But
It would also mean that Jorge and Malc loses control over it. There would be a shitload of new modules circulating and many of them if not most will be poorly written and buggy. They will be the ones screwing it up fo Jorge and Malc. Synthmaker will have to deal with everything that comes from that. Bug reports on these modules. Complaints and all that .
For this to work there has to be something that protects SM itself.
I don´t think support needs to be done for "selfmade" modules, since they are not a part of the Synthmaker package. This restriction could be added to the Licence Agreement. But for sure this won´t fully avoid bug-reports or help-requests.
I´ve read different forum entries when people comparing SE and SM. They very often complain about the missing SDK for SM. I´m not a coder myself but i fully understand the point of view of some code gurus, when they ask for more flexibility which would be given by a SDK.
chironex ·
rl wrote: (Just see how long it took between the first request for a iFFT component and the actual release (great module BTW))
It exists? 😮
And, what is an LUA?
aliasant ·
chironex wrote: rl wrote: (Just see how long it took between the first request for a iFFT component and the actual release (great module BTW))
It exists? 😮
And, what is an LUA?
´
Well. That iFFT is in the new beta thing.
And to answer Neptune.
Sure support "doesnt have to be made" but SM will still have to deal with it. I think maybe that is holding them back a bit. Maybe. It would make me think twice. Its like with the iPhone. Apple didnt want to loose control over it. Letting anyone write whatever crap apps they could and spread the shit over the web. This is a big part to why iPhone is so very successful. All top apps. No half written buggy code in it. But finally they had to let developers write stuff for it so they now let them. But its still pretty controlled.
Anyways.
Im for SDK. I want it.
But I can see the problems too.
Tom7777 ·
It would also mean that Jorge and Malc loses control over it. There would be a shitload of new modules circulating and many of them if not most will be poorly written and buggy. I know many modules will be superb and I would love to have more specified modules made of things I use a lot. And I would also love to get some of the stuff you guys will write. But there are a shitload of goofs out there with much less experiance that will code these modules. They might try to sell them or spread them in other ways. They will do this because they think they have made something cool. They will be the ones screwing it up fo Jorge and Malc. Synthmaker will have to deal with everything that comes from that. Bug reports on these modules. Complaints and all that.
imo i don't mind if its added or not really, having been using the program for a while now and learnt alot of stuff im starting to see more and more things posted that are no interest to me and teach me nothing example wise so i agree that there may be a wave of not so great stuff which isn't so great imo. I guess it's to be expected with all programs where you can build your own stuff though really at the end of the day when new users have built there first 3 osc synth and want to show the world etc 😉 Also i agree that would be annoying with module bug reports as i tend to try and read all the forum posts so multiple questions asking the same things over and over annoy me (hence my silly forum signiture/quote), and tons of bug reports for stuff the devs didn't make would be annoying no doubt 🙂
infuzion ·
chironex wrote: And, what is an LUA?
Dang man, don't you know how to use Google yet? 😉 http://www.lua.org/ Used by a few apps to add scripting. Like World of Warcraft. You might have heard of that 😉
chironex ·
I found that. But the way it was referred to as "A LUA" confused me. Would you happen to mean "A LUA SDK"?
aliasant ·
chironex wrote: I found that. But the way it was referred to as "A LUA" confused me. Would you happen to mean "A LUA SDK"?
Aloha?
Dj-Grobe ·
I join to this SDK request : )
philter5 ·
rl wrote: ...all together now:
s d k ! S D K ! ESS DEEE KAY! ESS DEEE KAY!
😀 great rl! +1 even if i think i can´t write my own stuff with a sdk, it would really increase the possibiltys of SM
sunsynth ·
I was the 2nd from right back then... 😉
+++1
...oooOOO It's never 2 late OOOooo...
infuzion ·
Or even if someone can hack the SM.DLL to allow 2 way communication to outside DLLs would be nice.
attic ·
Right now Synthmaker has the edge on many ease of use things, and that is why I bought it, but I am also very involved on the Synthedit side of things and wouldn't be without my Ck modules or the DH stuff. I'm seeing a lot of new Sdk developers over there and they are killing us on certain types of midi modules and some sample based functionality. It is precisely because of the Sdk that some of that functionality exists there and not here yet. When I start a plugin with alot off midi stuff in it, I have to think hard about what environment will accommodate it best. Midi handling is one area where an Sdk would be helpful to us, also not being able to save wav files is an issue. If I had to choose between the two, I would choose Synthmaker for many reasons. If you are into Midi and Sample based Vst's like me you see some limitation's but I know if there was an Sdk we would be saving wav files within 12 days of it's release.
For those of you trying to make a choice between the two, I haven't found much that I can't do with this program. Sample based and Midi type Vst's are easily created. It is very deep and will accommodate almost any project. It is very much a case of apples and oranges, sometimes better here other times better there. I just want it all and yesterday. 😈 Take a look around the forum here and the Wiki, you will see this is a friendly helpful community with great support. Synthmaker is full of potential ... take it from a somewhat reformed Synthedit user.
+1
exonerate ·
@attic Saving to wavefile is possible 🙂
Make sure you have RnD modules turned on in "options" and it will show in the "Wave" section of the toolbox. 🙂
Cheers 😉
Exo
attic ·
What! 😮 Well don't I feel stupid. Sure enough there it is. I still want an Sdk though 😈
infuzion ·
attic wrote: What! 😮 Well don't I feel stupid. Sure enough there it is. I still want an Sdk though 😈
Many things are able to be done with existing primitives. An SDK would be awesome, but I don't think Outsim has the time to add it, let alone has the time to support it. Really the best bet is to either: 1) Switch to C++, C#, SE or Max/MSP 2) Create a wrapper for the VST.DLL or hack into it directly.
rl ·
@Outsim:
How about starting with an SDK for all non-audio related things on the first run. The part of code that is running in a VST's GUI (or non-realtime) -thread. This would enable DIY solutions to all sorts of missing features: File IO, read/write all sorts of file formats, OS level access, dongle/protection for those who need it, OSC support, enhanced MIDI, Grobe's multitouch, more vector primitives(triangle, polygon), enhanced UI elements, video anyone?, 'green' coding..............
infuzion ·
rl wrote: How about starting with an SDK for all non-audio related things on the first run.
That's a good idea, though one could just patch in their own audio system at that point.
Wrote something here? To have a post removed or your name hidden, write to [email protected].