PlanetZ forums - scopeusers.com

garyb wrote:no. there's a good chance of seeing osc or mackie control in the future if all goes well, though.

ns

Shroomz~> wrote:The more I think about it, they might only have to build the OSC I/O interfacing modules for Scope & the sdk if the new sdk modules contained conversions from OSC to the various signal/information types used within the sdk (and Scope under the hood). ALL Devices would still need to be rebuilt in the sdk with the new OSC interfacing built in though, which would mean all developers remaking their devices or building new OSC compatible versions.

That sounds like a big hugely time consuming job.



ns

nightscope wrote:That sounds like a big hugely time consuming job.

Exactly mate. People would most likely need to pay for it as well. No free Scope software update for that one if it comes in v6 or 7. I'm not entirely convinced that it would be worthwhile for SC to spend time on either unless it was something they had already planned & built into XITE, which it doesn't sound like they have.

nightscope wrote: That sounds like a big hugely time consuming job.

which is exactly the kind of thing that the guys in S/C love doing, assuming that they can pay the bills by selling product...

Something that's worth consideration is that only a relatively small number of existing Scope users will be interested in PAYING for new software that supports OSC & that's going to be a problem for anyone that spends serious time implementing it in the platform & plugins. That's probably why it should be something that's only implemented in new hardware, adding an extra incentive for people to buy said new hardware in the future. (just my opinion though & I could easily be very wrong)

The thing is Stardust; you have a lemur, but not too many Scopers have those. There are definitely some Scopers that use max/MSP that would love to see it, but how many? If a dozen Scopers stick their name here, would that mean that it's worth the time to implement it? I'm not so sure TBH.

oh, my! i used a bad word again...let's just hope for M/C for now. if we get better, it's even better. the main thing is that a better automation protocol will be needed for the platform to really get the respect and response it deserves and i'm confident right now that S/C is willing to do it, assuming that all goes reasonably well...

garyb wrote:oh, my! i used a bad word again

I wouldn't say that Gary, as I'm all for being optimistic about Scope's future (as you know), but maybe people shouldn't be allowed to believe that something like full OSC integration within Scope & all of it's plugins is remotely likely to happen within the next 18-24 months unless it actually/definitely is. As it stands atm, full OSC support in Scope & it's plugins is a complete pipe dream.

garyb wrote:...let's just hope for M/C for now.

The 'M/C' is already partially implemented as you no doubt know (at least there's some basic interfacing modules available in the sdk). Wolf made new mixers with an implementation of it.

garyb wrote:if we get better, it's even better. the main thing is that a better automation protocol will be needed for the platform to really get the respect and response it deserves and i'm confident right now that S/C is willing to do it, assuming that all goes reasonably well...

If Wolf did it to the extent that he did, then Sonic Core can too.

From my perspective, the xite is currently way beyond my price limit. The current scope hardware is excellent for what I need so if SC wants to sell me something it needs to be 5.0.

At this point other than maybe Vista support, there is no reason for me to upgrade to 5.0. Are there any new features in 5.0 I can't live without? As of now, the only thing I know I am willing to pay the upgrade price for 4.0 to 5.0 would be increased control of the 2448 and 4896 from a midi control surface, but that is not in the release.

It seems to me that there is a great potential for xite to compete against the likes of the large format digital consoles like Digidesign Venue with the right control surface and preamps and be significantly less expensive. But to do it, a control surface needs direct control of all mixing parameters, which is not possible at this point (currently limited to 128 controls on one midi channel)

I would like OSC support.

However something like mackie control and other control surface compatibility in the mixers and other devices would be more useful to more people.
(a switcher which changes whats being controlled when you change it on the surface)

Agreed. I am not arguing for a particular implementation, I am asking for any implementation that can be used to accomplish this. (I do think is was short sighted or creamware to only use 1 mini channel per device instead of 1 midichannel per control). As a software engineer (my real job) I cannot see how this would be all that much work.

Scope is THAT old winger. for that reason alone, the v5 rewrite should be worth it. it IS a rewrite, even if the gui is familiar and nice still...

/Scope is THAT old winger. for that reason alone, the v5 rewrite should be worth it

Are you saying that anything old must go and replaced with new? I guess I had better look out.

well, it's nice when a machine is optimized a bit. you can certainly stay with v4 and be happy for a long time to come.

everything old must eventually be replaced or renewed i'm afraid...

stardust wrote: I am old as well.

Your replacement better be a hot brunette that likes Scotland.

Pics!! Post-replacement of course.

Big fan of M/C and OSC being built into Scope. It would raise the bar for the Xite-1, making it into a monster hunting dog that can track and acquire multiple targets.

I had a pre-coffee thought: what if lots of the reAtoming could be distributed amongst the sdk devs?

if protection code is built into all/most of the commercial atoms, that might be a showstopper. Also, would one need more than a stock dev kit, in order to make the updates?

I know I'd hop onto such a project.

cap

(I have performance concerns with OSC, but this is solvable by native code, I'll bet )

The 'M/C' is already partially implemented as you no doubt know (at least there's some basic interfacing modules available in the sdk). Wolf made new mixers with an implementation of it.

Just stumbled over this thread
fyi there is no M/C support at all in the SDK. The MackieControl support implemented in my mixers is all handmade work from ground up.
I already offered SonicCore last year my co-work, but .. well .. things need time obviously.

best,
Wolfgang

Wolf, there's 'Mackie Button Control' & 'Mackie Fader Control' modules in the our sdk install, but they're in the dsp module list, which DP apparently doesn't have. As a response to requests, I mentioned that I thought Mackie support was possible a long time ago (when I first released the modular version of Octamix), simply because these modules were there in the sdk.