PlanetZ forums - scopeusers.com

Can someone tell me something about the differences between Modular II and Modular III. The Flexor Modules seem to work in both, although they are installed in the Modular II directory. Is every module from Modular II accesible in Modular III ? What advantage does the Modular III have ?

Regards
Roger

Mod3 has a new shell and new modules. The new shell has an interesting feature that permits to control uo to 16 parameters of your synth without open the modular window. It is very handy if you build big patches.
The new shell has a couple of small bugs (watch the modular talk forum) and for this reason some mod3 users still use the mod2 shell instead the new one.
Flexor works with both version because it is a collection of new modules and not a new modular.
From my point of view Flexor and the new modules of mod3 are complementary.

Worth mentioning that all new 3rd party modules work in the same way - they all work in both Mod 2 and Mod 3 shells.

In order to get make them accessible from the Mod window of either M2 or 3 you must put them into the Modular 2 Modules directory. The menu structure follows the same structure as the directories, so if you like you could do something likethis:
Create a new directory called '3rd party modules' and within that lots of sub-directories called 'Zarg', 'SpaceF','MCCYRANO', etc and the menu in the Mod shells would follow suit.

Look out for 3rd party modules (many free ones) from:
Adern
Alfonso D'Amora
djmicron
fra77x
j9k
MCCYRANO
rcaia
ReD MuZe
SpaceF
Wolf
ZargMusic

Sorry if I've left anyone off the list.

For an (almost) complete list (most recent modules not yet added) check my site.

Cheers,
Ben

Thank for the clarification. From the few tests I made it seems that the Modular III is more stable than Modular II. Can this be true ?

Regards
Roger

Mod II shell is more stable for most...

Most people I know (that includes the whole Adern developing and probably the whole test team) use Mod2 shells holding modules including M2, M3, as well as 3rd party like Flexor and others. M3 shell has appeared to cause occasional problems, M2 is most stable...

You can use all modules within Modular 2 shell. Modular 3 includes very important modules if you're doing advanced modular synthesis. Many of them I couldn't live without.

I always use M2 shell for my projects, as at0m and the others stated above. The 'remote control' thing in M3 is alright, but I never use it.

There is an obvous major flaw which you can work around . What I want to know is after all these years, why has it not been fixed???????? We spent a lot on this. Oh and one more thing; Don't ever complain about this issue in public because all the CW butt kissers will come down on your real hard!

On 2006-09-20 04:36, valis wrote:
Mod II shell is more stable for most...

On 2006-09-20 00:13, RogerZ wrote:
Thank for the clarification. From the few tests I made it seems that the Modular III is more stable than Modular II. Can this be true ?

Regards
Roger

On 2006-09-22 11:11, at0m wrote:
Most people I know (that includes the whole Adern developing and probably the whole test team) use Mod2 shells holding modules including M2, M3, as well as 3rd party like Flexor and others. M3 shell has appeared to cause occasional problems, M2 is most stable...

I would say (I might be wrong) that the problems could be caused by the loading of the M III shell control panel... the graphics in scope are nice but heavy, I noticed that the phase of project loading is quite heavy and that the bmp loading might be a source of stress...maybe the differences between systems are related to graphic cards and resources handling...

As for what Roger says, that is the opposite of what others seem to have noticed, it adds some more mistery...