ArtWonk/MusicWonk v3.0 is nearly ready to ship. It's been through a full beta cycle and the bugs have been shaken out as far as I can tell. An extra layer of testing by Scope users would be great. ArtWonk is a modular algorithmic music program that creates a MIDI stream and works very well with the Scope/Pulsar platform. ArtWonk and MusicWonk are the same except ArtWonk also has graphics components. You can read more about it at the web site:
http://algoart.com
And you can download the v3.0 beta from:
http://algoart.com/download/beta/ArtWonk30-1438.zip
The download is packaged as a Reader, with saves disabled. You can get a 90 day beta key for the full package for $1. Go to the Order page and order the 30 day trial for $1, and PM or email me that you want the v3.0 beta.
(The reason for the $1 is to get PayPal ID verification, to try to keep the crackers at bay.)
John
johndunn@algoart.com
Beta test for ArtWonk/MusicWonk v3.0
-
cyril_g108
- Posts: 11
- Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 4:54 am
- Location: France
Ha. I was going to put in the ability to access presets by name, but a few people on this board thought that discussing patch format was somehow going to hurt SonicCore. So that was dropped.stardust wrote:John, what is the scope specific feature of this version ?
See: How to extract patch names from preset files?
http://www.planetz.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=24921
There are no Scope specific features, except that ArtWonk puts out MIDI in every way imaginable, and Scope has gread MIDI control of just about anything you want. ArtWonk provides the notes and control, Scope plays the music. What makes Scope especially good compared to most soft synths is that Scope can easily run multiple instruments and devices simultaneously, and ArtWonk typically plays multiple MIDI voices with lots of real time control.
Basically, yes. I had planned to devote several months, perhaps a year to this project. But I dropped it after a couple months frustration. Perhaps I got the SDK at a bad time, but I could never get information from anyone, documentation was poor and just wrong, example devices were missing, and too many secrets, too many secrets. Just like the patch name business. Secrecy is important when it protects, but the kind of paranoid secrecy that surrounded the SDK development is counterproductive in the extreme, as we have seen.cyril_g108 wrote:Very intersting! Have you gave up the scope modular version project?
It's no great insight that an expensive, niche product like Scope will live or die based on how well 3rd party support takes off. You can't do that and keep everything a secret. For example the personal computer that eclipsed all others and became the standard was the IBM PC. Not because of IBM marketing, which was geared to mainframes and didn't know how to deal with, or even believe in PCs. It was because IBM took a leap of faith in 3rd party developers and released EVERYTHING, even full BIOS source code. There were several other PCs at the time that were better than the IBM PC, but only the PC opened up to 3rd party developers. The rest is history.
If SonicCore opened up the SDK to developers in a way CW never did, I would reconsider the project or something like it. But for now the Scope modular project is dropped.
Actually I am a bit offended because you assume I don't donate to PlanedZ. I have and more than once. I just don't brag about it by posting when I do.stardust wrote:No offense John.
As I posted before I appreciate your wonk work.
I would also appreciate if you would give a certain tribute to Z when you 'advertise' your clever products here.
Might be a discount to Z members or a donation to Z or whatever.
No offense meant, just my strong opinion as Z member.
Finally, this is a beta notice, not an advertisement. This is the only place where the v3 beta is publicly available ATM. Is this not exactly the intention of this Announcements area?
John, what you've done is really cool, but I don't understand your rant about sdk secrecy. If I've ever asked anyone a question, they've answered it. Although I haven't contacted CW or SC with questions about the sdk, because I thought they've probably got much more important things to do. Obviously, there's secrecy when it comes to algo design, but that's another matter altogether & completely down to the creator.
Maybe you know more though?
Maybe you know more though?
Well clearly there are a few people who have gotten excellent results from the SDK, and you are one of them. So perhaps my rant is out of sync with the times and there is now enough information available to use the 4.0 SDK effectively. It's been a few years since I last had the SDK on my computer.
Having said that, I stand by my premise, which is that CW was overly secret about how to use the SDK, and about allowing access to the tools and examples they had. Scope was so cool, both hardware and software, that they could have attracted many, many more developers if they had taken 3rd party development seriously and treated developers as partners instead of competitors.
Having said that, I stand by my premise, which is that CW was overly secret about how to use the SDK, and about allowing access to the tools and examples they had. Scope was so cool, both hardware and software, that they could have attracted many, many more developers if they had taken 3rd party development seriously and treated developers as partners instead of competitors.
sorry to disappoint you John - but 'real' 3rd party support of Scope never took off exactly because there were concerns about lacks to effectively protect intellectual property.
Quantec had planned to release a Scope version of their Yardstick, but withdraw and commented the step '...there's no adequate protection' in public.
Certainly most decision will have been made behind closed doors.
there really is no need at all for a hobbyist to use the SDK - there's Modular with the Flexor extensions and the rest of the Scope system can communicate with the Modular environment.
That's more than any other system on the market provides.
as a developer you should know that it's a meta-programming tool and not a linkable library.
You may like the approach or not, but if you decide to use it, you're bound to it's rules. There is no other way.
It's probably more bewildering for a 'programmer' than for a complete (yet motivated) newbie...
I really don't want thousands of developers to write Scope devices - in fact it would p*ss me off completely.
I just want those (say) 2 dozen elite people supplying outstanding tools.
You cannot go wrong on Zarg, SpaceF, Warp69 and Wolf (to name a few)
Of course I'll appreciate anyone who made his way through the SDK challenge - Shroomz is a good example of someone accepting the challenge and growing on system demands. Hats off
cheers, Tom
Quantec had planned to release a Scope version of their Yardstick, but withdraw and commented the step '...there's no adequate protection' in public.
Certainly most decision will have been made behind closed doors.
there really is no need at all for a hobbyist to use the SDK - there's Modular with the Flexor extensions and the rest of the Scope system can communicate with the Modular environment.
That's more than any other system on the market provides.
as a developer you should know that it's a meta-programming tool and not a linkable library.
You may like the approach or not, but if you decide to use it, you're bound to it's rules. There is no other way.
It's probably more bewildering for a 'programmer' than for a complete (yet motivated) newbie...
I really don't want thousands of developers to write Scope devices - in fact it would p*ss me off completely.
I just want those (say) 2 dozen elite people supplying outstanding tools.
You cannot go wrong on Zarg, SpaceF, Warp69 and Wolf (to name a few)
Of course I'll appreciate anyone who made his way through the SDK challenge - Shroomz is a good example of someone accepting the challenge and growing on system demands. Hats off
cheers, Tom
Just to be clear here, you want us to pay $1 usd to beta test this product?
What happens when the beta expires? Is there some sort of discount?
BTW, Softstep looks far more interesting, any plans to upgrade that? I'm more into predictability than either of the "wonk" products seem to offer.
I'll mess around with it on my second machine this weekend.
What happens when the beta expires? Is there some sort of discount?
BTW, Softstep looks far more interesting, any plans to upgrade that? I'm more into predictability than either of the "wonk" products seem to offer.
I'll mess around with it on my second machine this weekend.
the copies are probably digitally finger-printed, so he can track the destination to which the original was sent - in case a cr*ck shows up...... (The reason for the $1 is to get PayPal ID verification, to try to keep the crackers at bay.)...
an almost inevitable event ...
it's the minimum amount that allows to engage PayPal, an acceptable approach imo
cheers, Tom
not really - people do it just to prove it could be done...
the problem is that afterwards they distribute the proof for the proof for bragging purpose
other people with a lazy, careless or just dumb mind then take advantage
even if it's only about a handful of bucks - internet culture, so to say
cheers, Tom
the problem is that afterwards they distribute the proof for the proof for bragging purpose
other people with a lazy, careless or just dumb mind then take advantage
even if it's only about a handful of bucks - internet culture, so to say
cheers, Tom
Most of my software has been cracked at one time or another, regardless of the price. Current prices are low, I wanted to see if lower prices had any impact on sales, but ArtWonk is limited more by the number of people wanting this kind of approach than how much it costs, so that experiment will be coming to and end soon enough.
It's possible to minimize cracking by tying the software to the hardware, as most in the music software industry are doing. But I find that really annoying as a user and I'd prefer to let users install whenever their hard disk goes down, or they get a new laptop, or whatever, without getting my permission first. So by going through PayPal to get a real ID, and then embedding the ID into the license key, it seems to keep people pretty honest. At least so far. If you don't want to pay $1 you wouldn't likely be a serious user, so it also saves both of us some time.
Beta keys expire in 90 days. If you are a really helpful tester you get invited into the private beta group, your name gets on the credits list and you get free keys. But most testers are in it more for curiosity than really testing. I'll maybe hear from them once or twice and that's all. They are welcome to participate at that level, but I don't feel freebe keys are in order.
As for discounts, there is always a pre release sale of one sort or another to subscribers of the newsletter. You don't have to do anything to qualify but sign up for the newsletter, which I send out erratically and only when I have something useful to pass on.
SoftStep is finished. It is easier to get started with, sort of the difference between a Scope synth and a Scope modular, but ultimately ArtWonk is far more powerful.
Truth to tell, I no longer have to pay a lot of attention to the marketplace anymore, and I am free to work on what interests me. Which is why I keep trying to improve ArtWonk even though it's way beyond what most people care about in an algorithmic music package, if they care all. I've paid my dues in the computer graphics and music software industry for over 30 years, I'm semi retired now and work on what pleases me. That pleases a few other people who's work I admire, and that's all it takes to motivate me...and not much else.
Hope this answers the questions put to me today. If not, ask again and I'll try again. Also if you are really interested in ArtWonk, just go download it and check it out. Download is free, full documentation, lots of example patches (badly documented - sorry - working on it). Most people know in an hour or two if it's cool or a bust for them.
It's possible to minimize cracking by tying the software to the hardware, as most in the music software industry are doing. But I find that really annoying as a user and I'd prefer to let users install whenever their hard disk goes down, or they get a new laptop, or whatever, without getting my permission first. So by going through PayPal to get a real ID, and then embedding the ID into the license key, it seems to keep people pretty honest. At least so far. If you don't want to pay $1 you wouldn't likely be a serious user, so it also saves both of us some time.
Beta keys expire in 90 days. If you are a really helpful tester you get invited into the private beta group, your name gets on the credits list and you get free keys. But most testers are in it more for curiosity than really testing. I'll maybe hear from them once or twice and that's all. They are welcome to participate at that level, but I don't feel freebe keys are in order.
As for discounts, there is always a pre release sale of one sort or another to subscribers of the newsletter. You don't have to do anything to qualify but sign up for the newsletter, which I send out erratically and only when I have something useful to pass on.
SoftStep is finished. It is easier to get started with, sort of the difference between a Scope synth and a Scope modular, but ultimately ArtWonk is far more powerful.
Truth to tell, I no longer have to pay a lot of attention to the marketplace anymore, and I am free to work on what interests me. Which is why I keep trying to improve ArtWonk even though it's way beyond what most people care about in an algorithmic music package, if they care all. I've paid my dues in the computer graphics and music software industry for over 30 years, I'm semi retired now and work on what pleases me. That pleases a few other people who's work I admire, and that's all it takes to motivate me...and not much else.
Hope this answers the questions put to me today. If not, ask again and I'll try again. Also if you are really interested in ArtWonk, just go download it and check it out. Download is free, full documentation, lots of example patches (badly documented - sorry - working on it). Most people know in an hour or two if it's cool or a bust for them.
No, they are different programs, different approaches. MusicWonk does not have the graphics other than widget controls, ArtWonk has far more extensive graphics. There is a comparison chart on the web site, along with online full manuals.7XL wrote:Are you saying that Musicwonk has all the features of Softstep included?
I think that was really unfortunate to put it mildly. I don't know about back then, but certainly afaik, there is adequate protection these days as long as the sdk pack & protect tools are used correctly (as was highlighted last year). The only little niggle are the ceratin people who self-confessed to sitting with software checking which dsp atoms & modules are being loaded for specific devices, but that amounts to nothing more than knowing what you've used & ceratinly doesn't give away much insight as to how the atoms & modules have been used. In otherwords, those with prying eyes couldn't reconstruct a circuit that uses 100-200 atoms & modules just because they've got a list of which ones were used. Just thought it was worth mentioning...astroman wrote:sorry to disappoint you John - but 'real' 3rd party support of Scope never took off exactly because there were concerns about lacks to effectively protect intellectual property. Quantec had planned to release a Scope version of their Yardstick, but withdraw and commented the step '...there's no adequate protection' in public.
Sorry for the slight thread hijack John.
Ok, does Artwonk have the capabilities to be "dumbed down" to look and function like Softstep? I don't care about fractal and algorithmic sequencing. I don't care about playing pictures and graphs. I would be looking for something that would work like a high end version of an old skool hardware sequencer.johndunn wrote:No, they are different programs, different approaches. MusicWonk does not have the graphics other than widget controls, ArtWonk has far more extensive graphics. There is a comparison chart on the web site, along with online full manuals.7XL wrote:Are you saying that Musicwonk has all the features of Softstep included?
And once again, did you update the program graphics? I'm not one to download and install software just to uninstall it. the Win98 graphics are a bit of a put off, especially for a program that uses graphics to create sound.
Not sure what you mean about the graphics. Most Windows software, including mine, take their style from the operating system, which actually builds the dialogs and pop ups and so on. So if you are in win98 the popups will have wib98 style, if you are in Vista, they will look like Vista. As for other graphics, they are what they are.7XL wrote:Ok, does Artwonk have the capabilities to be "dumbed down" to look and function like Softstep? I don't care about fractal and algorithmic sequencing. I don't care about playing pictures and graphs. I would be looking for something that would work like a high end version of an old skool hardware sequencer.johndunn wrote:No, they are different programs, different approaches. MusicWonk does not have the graphics other than widget controls, ArtWonk has far more extensive graphics. There is a comparison chart on the web site, along with online full manuals.7XL wrote:Are you saying that Musicwonk has all the features of Softstep included?
And once again, did you update the program graphics? I'm not one to download and install software just to uninstall it. the Win98 graphics are a bit of a put off, especially for a program that uses graphics to create sound.
As for wanting something that works like a hardware sequencer, you probably should go with BankStep, which is exactly that. Best of all it's free.
To anticipate other questions you have along this line, I gotta say, it's really time to RTFM.
-
irrelevance
7XL wrote:I will Read The Furnished Materials
And you have just lost a potential customer.
RTFM is just a bit of internerd slang and shouldn't be taken as an insult really.
I'm definitely interested in fractal music so will be having a look. BTW Johndunn I thought SC replied to John Copper that any if you required info on preset handling that you should just get in touch.