Open Scope Vaporware?

[petal]

In the past weeks I've seen people talk about Open Scope as being vaporware and also the implementaion of OSC into Scope as being vaporware!?

Is this just people's frustration about the endless waiting or is it actual decisions from Soniccore not to develop Open Scope or implement OSC into Scope?

[petal]

So your answer is "peoples frustration" then.

[dante]

All the rest you may have heard is fanboy fuss without authorization to spread it publicly.

What does 'all the rest' mean ? So - there are fanboys. So what ?

Let's look at some facts. There is a company called Sonic Core who have been spending a lot of money on presenting at Trade shows. Not just to the same extent as in previous years, but more so. S|C are presenting in China as we speak. I don't recall them doing that before - so correct me if I am wrong here.

Information coming from these shows, whilst second hand and 'unofficial', has been published with care and with some ratification communications with S|C.

Not sure about you, but having presented at a national software show myself I can inform you that it is not a cheap or easy exersize and not one for which you would become a ramp up participant without some sort of serious intention.

Discussion about Open Scope being 'vaporware' is redundant - of course its unreleased so it will continue to be vaporware (in that sense) until it IS released ! Of course S|C could walk away tomorrow but that possibility is the one that has the most 'vapor' of any other since it is not born out by observable events. What cant be disputed is that the commitment to propel the platform is being demonstrated 'publicly'. This being self evident, needs no authorisation whatsoever.

[dante]

Convinced of what? That they dont have a million$ marketing budget ?

I could have told you that

[jhulk]

they are releasing sdk6 to many people so its not vaporware
there are coders who have actively used it

MATTOMAT is one device that used it roland is using it for special modules

there are active people using it to create new modules

so its not vaporware

be ready for an explosion of development by many different people as they get to grips with juce implementation

and your so called bugs like the 64bit samplers problems will be addressed

for scope 6 to be released there has to be many devices that use it and optimizations for xite that has in built ram modules instead of using host ram like the pci cards

so stop trolling sc and the users (fanboys) as we all like to use the platform

[siriusbliss]

Dusty must be bored.
He's shitting on the parade again.

Ops question was about using xite as part of an integrated system for composing. The fact is that plenty of people are using xite as an integral part of this approach.

All the other blathering about fanboy ism in order to make him/herself look all high and mighty is an obfuscation.

G

[dante]

for scope 6 to be released there has to be many devices that use it and optimizations for xite that has in built ram modules instead of using host ram like the pci cards

Yep. Like John from Sur-audio's module pack :

http://forums.planetz.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=32317

Just checked out his SDRAM based Masterverb-Xvv on XITE - I can load twice as many of them as the Masterverb-X

Let the good times roll.

[djmicron]

for scope 6 to be released there has to be many devices that use it and optimizations for xite that has in built ram modules instead of using host ram like the pci cards

Yep. Like John from Sur-audio's module pack :

http://forums.planetz.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=32317

Just checked out his SDRAM based Masterverb-Xvv on XITE - I can load twice as many of them as the Masterverb-X

Let the good times roll.

There is no need to run sdk 6 for modules optimization and sdk 6 at the moment is limited in functionality(i talk about the version i have and if something new exists, then it's S|C fault not telling us).
In another thread i said scope 6 its vaporware, not because of frustration and not to be offensive, it's just a matter of fact until now.
The openscope 6 announcement has been discussed on many forums, kvr, steinberg, synthedit, synthmaker etc. with too much hype.
http://www.the-new-world-of-music.net/, closed, also announcing openscope as open source software, without source publicly available, this has been seen by many potential users as something not to be trusted.
Customization of modules is already possible with scope sdk v5 or v4, all we need is that modules are not fully protected to gain access to control pads and do customizations on the gui and to some circuit parts.
So unless scope 6 will be released, would be very appreciated something like this, more practical, not so complicated, no needs of expensive teams of developers, just some people opening scope sdk v5 doing the job.

[fra77x]

Hi,

"There is no need to run sdk 6 for modules optimization and sdk 6 at the moment is limited in functionality"

Look sdk 6 is in beta, so its normal that is limited in functionality. "modules optimization". There is no need for modules optimization. All the modules are well designed according to each hardware capabilities. Xite offers onboard ram and that is the only potential for optimization. It is scheduled and will happen soon.

"it's just a matter of fact until now." No it's not a fact as you already have it. How on earth can you own vapor?

"open source software, without source publicly available, this has been seen by many potential users as something not to be trusted"
Companies don't release their source code. That is insane. Open Scope is not opensource. It is opened for improved GUI design so the developers can program freely, the gui of their programs. Do you suppose adobe, autodesk, microsoft to provide their sources. Open source is for the univercities, for stand alone projects when learning stuff and so on. After that programmers code is invested money, it is absolutely insane to release that for free.

"Customization of modules is already possible with scope sdk v5 or v4," Why you need to customize other people's work? You have on your hands a excellent sdk. Isn't most interesting to design your own work?

In general try to understand what a hardware dsp is, how it works and find procedures that will make your work done. Their is no magic button that will make devices use less cycles, and all developers know how to make their devices optimus for a current design.

Manual dsp allocation is the main tool in your hands but its not user friendly. The automatic dsp allocator is quite good for the work it has to do.

Regards,
John

[neuromantik]

Companies don't release their source code. That is insane. Open Scope is not opensource. It is opened for improved GUI design so the developers can program freely, the gui of their programs. Do you suppose adobe, autodesk, microsoft to provide their sources. Open source is for the univercities, for stand alone projects when learning stuff and so on. After that programmers code is invested money, it is absolutely insane to release that for free.

I don't want to see another thread derail like others on S|C's marketing strategy but I'm with micron on this one. Everytime someone dares criticizes something about S|C a lot of drama follows That's the thing with a great platform and passionate users/contributors.
I think what micron is referring to is the fact that S|C deliberately used the word 'open' as some kind of publicity stunt in order to break new ground where in fact, nothing really innovating is offered (reaktor core modules, max/msp, pd etc..) actually nothing really at all. Which is fine! SCOPE will take the time needed to undergo an overhaul, and there are workarounds. The thing is that companies suffer IMO when they brashly announce some kind of revolution then all of a sudden go into radio silence after exciting any interested parties (developers, DIY musicians). It's anti-climactic Remember when Waldorf announced the Stromberg? Now that's vaporware!

"Customization of modules is already possible with scope sdk v5 or v4," Why you need to customize other people's work? You have on your hands a excellent sdk. Isn't most interesting to design your own work?
In general try to understand what a hardware dsp is, how it works and find procedures that will make your work done. Their is no magic button that will make devices use less cycles, and all developers know how to make their devices optimus for a current design.

Perhaps what micron wants to do is correct (for free!) some of the latent bugs in the existing modules, they've been named a lot in the past weeks, but the sequencer mods, sample pools, samplers, and perhaps work on some of the SAT/polyphony issues for legacy devices so that the Xite can really shine! I for one am trying to dabble with the SDK but I'm at an impasse since the documentation is lacking and granted I'm not a big trial & error type of guy unless I'm patching synths or producing. Development in general shouldn't be about sifting through libraries and components until you find something that produces a function result, at least in my book.
And in my specific case I'm not touching DSP code since I'm not a systems/signals guy but I'm trying to develop a mutator for ModularIV like what exists on the G2 (ie. a simple randomizer for module parameters). Now since you seem very knowledgeable, can you point me in a direction of how I would go about doing something of the sort without having at least a basic API of the existing modules? I would prefer NOT having some kind of config object dispatching cc events since I would like to "detect" which modules are loaded and wired in a shell. See simple stuff like that that really doesn't touch DSP stuff but I feel would bring a lot to the table

In any case love your stuff and hats off for your professional honesty by removing your devices from the shop knowing that they weren't optimized for the current hardware offerings (that also is another gripe I have with S|C, ie not advertising what works on what and on what architecture (PCI vs Xite, x86 vs x64)

Hope this and many other threads can stay informative and civil

[djmicron]

fra77x,
don't know if you followed the scope 6 / scope sdk announcement, you have misunderstood everything in my message.
Please read this page:

http://sonic-core.net/joomla.soniccore/ ... le&id=336:

look under the example section on that page and you'll understand why i wrote about customizing devices, because it's part of the sdk 6 promo.

quote from S|C web site:
"Example:
Minimax is missing an additional LFO or multi stage envelope in your opinion? Now you are able to just add it yourself by combining the Minimax core with some of the SDKs library modules and a new, custom interface!
"

Xite offers onboard ram and that is the only potential for optimization. It is scheduled and will happen soon.

sorry, but it's not all about on board ram, there is also dsp allocation that is already possible with sdk 5 and is what i have done to reach 99% of dsp's using a mix of synths and effects, not using xite ram.

There are already available delay dsp modules for the xite's ram, this is what is useful for delay based effects, such as the masterverb.

"it's just a matter of fact until now." No it's not a fact as you already have it. How on earth can you own vapor?

no, i talked about openscope 6 which i don't have, i have an alpha version called scope 6 sdk, that doesn't allow to do what is promoted on the quick start guide and it is only good for exporting dsp's to be used with the sdk 5 (which for some reason can't load dsp's as devices), then i know it will be released some day in the future and i'm confident in this.

Manual dsp allocation is the main tool in your hands but its not user friendly. The automatic dsp allocator is quite good for the work it has to do.

it's possible to assign dsp number before loading the module on the project, this is the best way to optimize the use of the xite and i think modules should be developed like this, unless new software will come out.

Companies don't release their source code. That is insane. Open Scope is not opensource. It is opened for improved GUI design so the developers can program freely, the gui of their programs. Do you suppose adobe, autodesk, microsoft to provide their sources. Open source is for the univercities, for stand alone projects when learning stuff and so on. After that programmers code is invested money, it is absolutely insane to release that for free.

he's not me, it has been promoted like this, it's clear there is nothing open source and calling the gui over windows api is not related to something open source, it's just a way of using ambiguous slogans.
Open source is insane?
So the Juce library used to develop scope 6 is something of insane? you have to think more about this.

read here:

http://www.juce.com/about-juce

LICENCE AND PURCHASING

Most JUCE modules are shared under the GNU Public Licence (GPLv2, v3, and the AGPLv3). This means that the code can be freely copied and distributed, and costs nothing to use in other GPL applications. One module (the juce_core module) is permissively licensed under the ISC.

[fra77x]

Are you talking serious?

"If you'd like to release a closed-source application that uses JUCE, commercial licences are available for a fee."

[djmicron]

if you develop an application that is closed source, then yes, there is a fee, but if you leave the juce code open source, then it's ok, but the concern is that you said that open source software is only for universities while it is used widely especially by developers.
Then, what do you think about my other clarifications?

[dante]

http://www.the-new-world-of-music.net/, closed, also announcing openscope as open source software, without source publicly available, this has been seen by many potential users as something not to be trusted.

I don't recall Open Scope being announced as Open Source.

[garyb]

fine. it's vaporware. you can't have it.
have you been injured somehow?

has a crime been commited?

is it time to get a rope?



by the way, YOU can't have it. you know who you are.

[tgstgs]

xite is the best and powerfullst developementplatform out there_
but scope is deep;
needs long to get realy into it_

i would expect a lot of devices to come_
but i would not expect them to come fast;

you can learn a lot from modifying existing devices but it is more fun to build your own

open scope is NOT like the old sdk;
you never realy saw code in sdk did you;
i mean the
long[] val = new long[howmuchever];
or
for(;;) {System.out.print("Scope is great");}
stuff
you need to realy code now;
but as well use all the existing methodes (atoms);
you should be even able to code your own scope XX

good vibes

[jhulk]

yes open scope means you can create your own atoms and add them to the scope sdk

thats why its open and that you can create your own gui designs using juce vstgui gui tools

so it means that 64bit wave play back modules can be created for the 64bit os versions

but it still needs someone to implement the code to work on the sharc dsp

it means devices or mdl can be added to scope that are not there

[fra77x]

Can you please give me an example of some of the devices that are not there?

And also please let me know, the absense of the 64 bit wave player is a reason that is stopping you from creating music?

Also please can you point me to another similar system that has a plenty of the devices you insinuate?

And a last thing are you between the people that just wants to help and make Xite shine?

[djmicron]

I'm not accusing sonic core, i'm just pointing out what potential customers got from the scope 6 announcement and what many potential customers think about the actual scope 5.1 on the xite.

I have not invented the story about scope 6 as open source, just search here or in other forums and you will see that it is how scope 6 is promoted.

Look for example here:

http://forums.planetz.com/viewtopic.php ... ce#p297927

a post from Gary who is a trusted S|C collaborator:

v6 is made of elements like JUCE that are cross platform, so once v6 is complete, it will only take a few tweeks and a driver to make an OSX version. this means that the possibility of an OSX version goes from being a fond wish to a probability. currently, it takes more than 2 1/2 YEARS to make a new Scope version. v6 will also be open source, so anyone with basic coding skills could do the job in a few months.

I'm not interested in having an open source sdk, i'm good with v5.1 and v4, better not to announce things too early and better to improve what is available.

just my opinion

[jhulk]

i dont use 64bit as the sample engines dont work

i like the 32bit and still use it as the only reason for 64bit is big massive sample streaming for kontakt

but there are many who like 64bit and want to use the bc modular sts sample mdl but cant as they get errors

we are currently working on many additional mdl for modular

and i have the sdk6 and am currently using matlab and dsp vstudio and the latest ez sharvc evaluation board for creating my own atoms

as for me theirs the user wavetable mdl

wavescanning mdl

sample wave loop modulation mdl

top octave osc mdl a old style bdd chorus as used by the these old string machines

i have created one using the sdk mdls but its not quite right and need some extra mdl to make it right so im going to code the dsp for it

i dont have an exite only pci which i have 3 systems