I'm actually really interested in some people who really know what's going on with the Scope/Fusion/Pulsar development platform.
I've read bits and pieces and I just wanted to get some more insight to the situation.
1) How open is the Scope development platform?
2) Is there anything really attracting more developers to this platform than say VSTi, DXi, TDM, UAD, MAS and Powercore?
3) Why did Waldorf start developing for this platform and then vanish in a puff of smoke?
4) Are we seeing more developers leave this platform than come to this platform?
5) If the current situation is grim, is it likely to get better?
6) I realise there are some fantastic developers for this platform and some amazing devices out there. But are we a platform heading for stagnation or innovation and expansion?
What are peoples' thoughts on this?
Sorry, I'd just rather have a discussion on this than "Creamware are dishonest", "Creamware is too expensive", "Creamware is not powerful enough" yadda yadda yadda.
Scope development platform - what's missing?
Click on the "third party developers" links on the CW site and you will find that about 95% actually have NO products for Pulsar/Scope. In fact I don't recall seeing ANY. Maybe they're all "in the works" ? 
Some may recall a post a while back where I asked DSPDEV if they would make their new oscillator available as a ModV2 device. The answer was that they'd love to but CW wouldn't let them do it.
This topic is similar to my question elsewhere: "where is Creamware taking us". Well, only CW know because there is no one else coming for the ride.... let's hope they can do it alone.
Some may recall a post a while back where I asked DSPDEV if they would make their new oscillator available as a ModV2 device. The answer was that they'd love to but CW wouldn't let them do it.
This topic is similar to my question elsewhere: "where is Creamware taking us". Well, only CW know because there is no one else coming for the ride.... let's hope they can do it alone.
Its a funny one this one.
I for one would LOVE to have access to dev tools at a reasonable price point (or free) - this in my opinion would encourage lots of third party devices etc. and in turn push up the user base. However I can see it from Creamwares point of view. Their sales model does appear to be to get us to keep giving them money for new devices etc. Also this would be a support nightmare - their experience with users ain't exactly positive - pulsar seems to attract more people who think creamware owe them and have wronged them than other products.
My personal feeling is that the Creamware goes it alone route will isolate them in the end. Whereas having a lot of 3rd party and enthusiast support will benefit them.
Having said all of that - this is idle speculcation and there is no info at all at present on the website about a dev platform so perhaps they are having a major rethink.
Heres hoping - I have been getting my feet wet so to speak with DSP and audio dev by making externals for PD - it would be great to make things for my pulsar.
cheers
mark
I for one would LOVE to have access to dev tools at a reasonable price point (or free) - this in my opinion would encourage lots of third party devices etc. and in turn push up the user base. However I can see it from Creamwares point of view. Their sales model does appear to be to get us to keep giving them money for new devices etc. Also this would be a support nightmare - their experience with users ain't exactly positive - pulsar seems to attract more people who think creamware owe them and have wronged them than other products.
My personal feeling is that the Creamware goes it alone route will isolate them in the end. Whereas having a lot of 3rd party and enthusiast support will benefit them.
Having said all of that - this is idle speculcation and there is no info at all at present on the website about a dev platform so perhaps they are having a major rethink.
Heres hoping - I have been getting my feet wet so to speak with DSP and audio dev by making externals for PD - it would be great to make things for my pulsar.
cheers
mark
__________________________________________
junklight - dark experimental electronics
http://www.junklight.com
junklight - dark experimental electronics
http://www.junklight.com
yes,this is one place that i hope will improve.third party support. still there are some very nice devices from some promising developers......i hope that cw is less discouraging in the future.i think that as the platform grows,(IF it grows)sheer numbers will improve the situation.noone major wants to write for a small audience.personally,i don't miss the major players.there is a lot of great stuff to use already that is in no danger of sounding suddenly worse.and since good sounds don't die, there's lots of good used hardware to integrate.in fact, i think that that is one of the advantages to the scope platform,with the adat i/o and some a/d converters,hardware can be integrated into the automated digital realm in real time. truly, the system is able to do more than i can truly take full advantage of at this stage in my career.............. the real problem would be the abandonment of the 32bit pci bus and the inablility to get parts for ones "obsolete" machine.the same problem as with my old scully 2 inch machine. get gear,make music.(sounds like a camel or maybe a sprite ad...)
The free developmental tools makes an interesting point doesn't it. I was able to download the VST plug-in development package from the Steinberg web site.
It was free did I mention that?
They say that nothing good comes for free and i'm not tan awesome C+ programmer yet, but being the passionate man that I am, I believe I'm going to construct my first VST plug-in soon. I'll post this triumph on my web site and give it away since it will be reall simple I'm sure.
What would it take to develope on the SCOPE DP system? I've noticed its not on the web site any longer and I'd like to do what DSPDEV does, Zarg and all those great folks. I'd like to learn the secrets to that and mature in my own code writing and GUI design.
I realize its just rambling---but is anyone on the know of these things too. I'm interested. I'd like to contribute.
It was free did I mention that?
They say that nothing good comes for free and i'm not tan awesome C+ programmer yet, but being the passionate man that I am, I believe I'm going to construct my first VST plug-in soon. I'll post this triumph on my web site and give it away since it will be reall simple I'm sure.
What would it take to develope on the SCOPE DP system? I've noticed its not on the web site any longer and I'd like to do what DSPDEV does, Zarg and all those great folks. I'd like to learn the secrets to that and mature in my own code writing and GUI design.
I realize its just rambling---but is anyone on the know of these things too. I'm interested. I'd like to contribute.
there's quite a difference with developement kits for VST (or Photoshop or whatever) and the Scope system.
The first one is basically just an interface description for data structures of an application, so this of course can be distributed free of charge. It doesn't contain any special knowledge.
The Scope system is a special purpose pre-programmed library with lots of stuff you don't have to do yourself. Though I don't have access to this personally I guess a single programmer would need at least 1-2 years fulltime to code this in DSP assembly.
The same amount of time would go into the graphical user interface.
One can't expect a company to give this for free. This library enables even people without knowledge of DSP coding to programm high quality audio apps with a readymade GUI in a very short time. If you like you can extend this with low level DSP stuff for that special algorithms of your own - maybe someone got a SoftLexi in his head already
The first one is basically just an interface description for data structures of an application, so this of course can be distributed free of charge. It doesn't contain any special knowledge.
The Scope system is a special purpose pre-programmed library with lots of stuff you don't have to do yourself. Though I don't have access to this personally I guess a single programmer would need at least 1-2 years fulltime to code this in DSP assembly.
The same amount of time would go into the graphical user interface.
One can't expect a company to give this for free. This library enables even people without knowledge of DSP coding to programm high quality audio apps with a readymade GUI in a very short time. If you like you can extend this with low level DSP stuff for that special algorithms of your own - maybe someone got a SoftLexi in his head already
Hey astroman. Thanks for that.
I don't really understand what the development platform contains so that kind of information explains it for me a bit better.
So you wouldn't need specialised DSP programming knowledge to write a Pulsar plug because the kit already contains this.
However, you can expand on it like DSPDEV does with your own DSP programming??
Incidentally, if you don't need DSP programming knowledge, what kind of programming knowledge do you require? I mean - do you need to know how to code in C++ for example? I'm not interested in developing myself - the last thing this platform needs is for my badly coded devices to be inflicted on it.
Caleb
I don't really understand what the development platform contains so that kind of information explains it for me a bit better.
So you wouldn't need specialised DSP programming knowledge to write a Pulsar plug because the kit already contains this.
However, you can expand on it like DSPDEV does with your own DSP programming??
Incidentally, if you don't need DSP programming knowledge, what kind of programming knowledge do you require? I mean - do you need to know how to code in C++ for example? I'm not interested in developing myself - the last thing this platform needs is for my badly coded devices to be inflicted on it.
Caleb
Caleb
Happiness is the hidden behind the obvious.
Happiness is the hidden behind the obvious.
-
EarlyFirst
- Posts: 258
- Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2001 4:00 pm
- Location: The Future
- Contact:
Sharc dsp coding is very hard I hear..
other then that if youknow how the device you want to build works , it's more then likely all you'll need is included in the tools..Hell I'll be the first to admit I had to go guerilla once or twice to finish something But I finished it without ever having to look at hundreds of lines of code.
Sure there are some tasty custom atoms I would love.. BUT learning how to code the dsp's myself would more then likely kill what free time I have now .
other then that if youknow how the device you want to build works , it's more then likely all you'll need is included in the tools..Hell I'll be the first to admit I had to go guerilla once or twice to finish something
But I finished it without ever having to look at hundreds of lines of code.Sure there are some tasty custom atoms I would love.. BUT learning how to code the dsp's myself would more then likely kill what free time I have now .
hi caleb,
the best answer to your question is given by earlyfirst above. He developed his reverbs without writing a line of code in an environement which looks just like the familiar routing of Pulsar devices, but of course on a more detailed and complicated level. I really forgot to mention this, but it is the most important aspect of the system - spares you hundreds of hours - and you can concentrate on your ideas.
And imho, though the price looks a bit frightening on a first glance - it's a real bargain. There are similiar systems for industrial purpose costing 10 times as much.
You may check out the reverbs of earlyfirst and verify what quality can be achieved with just scope alone.
I just mentioned the extendability because there are often complaints like '... but it's a closed system...'
the best answer to your question is given by earlyfirst above. He developed his reverbs without writing a line of code in an environement which looks just like the familiar routing of Pulsar devices, but of course on a more detailed and complicated level. I really forgot to mention this, but it is the most important aspect of the system - spares you hundreds of hours - and you can concentrate on your ideas.
And imho, though the price looks a bit frightening on a first glance - it's a real bargain. There are similiar systems for industrial purpose costing 10 times as much.
You may check out the reverbs of earlyfirst and verify what quality can be achieved with just scope alone.
I just mentioned the extendability because there are often complaints like '... but it's a closed system...'
Wow! So I could make a synth that I could give away to everyone without writing any code??!!??!!
Just like creating a Modular patch or a Reaktor ensemble??
That's amazing! I'm really impressed.
It does seem like a pretty neat idea - especially when you've got the option of adding your own programming where required (although I guess I don't understand that element as much).
But there are some limits obviously. You are restricted by what Creamware do present you with yes? I remember someone saying granular synthesis is not possible on this platform for example.
Actually, how much does the kit cost to start doing the developing?
Just like creating a Modular patch or a Reaktor ensemble??
That's amazing! I'm really impressed.
It does seem like a pretty neat idea - especially when you've got the option of adding your own programming where required (although I guess I don't understand that element as much).
But there are some limits obviously. You are restricted by what Creamware do present you with yes? I remember someone saying granular synthesis is not possible on this platform for example.
Actually, how much does the kit cost to start doing the developing?
Caleb
Happiness is the hidden behind the obvious.
Happiness is the hidden behind the obvious.
-
EarlyFirst
- Posts: 258
- Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2001 4:00 pm
- Location: The Future
- Contact:
"And imho, though the price looks a bit frightening on a first glance - it's a real bargain. There are similiar systems for industrial purpose costing 10 times as much. "
This, I think, depends on which way you look at it. IF your intention is to set up a business writing and selling pulsar devices then this is very true but on the other hand if you would just like to make a few things for free distribution then it is VERY expensive. I have a steady income and give away most of the things I do outside work - my music (ok maybe people wouldn't pay for that anyway
), my developemnt (for PD at present) and my writing. I would love to do the same for the pulsar.
mark
_________________
__________________________________________
junklight - dark experimental electronics
http://www.junklight.com
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: junklight on 2002-04-10 03:01 ]</font>
This, I think, depends on which way you look at it. IF your intention is to set up a business writing and selling pulsar devices then this is very true but on the other hand if you would just like to make a few things for free distribution then it is VERY expensive. I have a steady income and give away most of the things I do outside work - my music (ok maybe people wouldn't pay for that anyway
), my developemnt (for PD at present) and my writing. I would love to do the same for the pulsar. mark
_________________
__________________________________________
junklight - dark experimental electronics
http://www.junklight.com
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: junklight on 2002-04-10 03:01 ]</font>
hi Mark,
I agree fully, for that purpose you mention it's expensive. And, don't get me wrong, imho that's intended.
It's a way to sort out serious developers to increase software quality. Honestly I don't like the statement myself, but I've seen it work.
In the early days of Apple Macs even people who disliked the system agreed that software quality was way superior to windows applications.
This was achieved by the following procedure:
Information about Mac Roms was disclosed (in opposition to earlier Apple machines)
You had to buy a developement machine (called Mac XL aka Lisa) for about 15 k bucks.
You had to qualify at an Apple course programm
Your application had to follow exactly the Mac user interface guidelines - and they didn't support anything not doing so.
All this for a machine quite new on the market, with unknown future and big competitors - kind of a relious war in those days. 'Power users don't need a pointing device...' was a common IBM statement.
We all know that the Mac style of programming applications finally succeeded.
The Commodore Amiga and Atari ST from the same time failed completely in the professional market just because of this lack of pro developers.
I don't wanna start anything like Mac is superior or about OS philosophy - just show there may be a reason for those unpopular decisions.
Myself I once didn't buy a certain developement kit just because I thought it was too expensive for me - my worst decision ever as it later turned out.
It's up to you to think about how far you want to go with your developement. Why not make a living (or part of it) from something you really like ?
If you have good ideas the Scope system will accelerate your work tremendously and this will influence your creativity too.
regards, Tom
I agree fully, for that purpose you mention it's expensive. And, don't get me wrong, imho that's intended.
It's a way to sort out serious developers to increase software quality. Honestly I don't like the statement myself, but I've seen it work.
In the early days of Apple Macs even people who disliked the system agreed that software quality was way superior to windows applications.
This was achieved by the following procedure:
Information about Mac Roms was disclosed (in opposition to earlier Apple machines)
You had to buy a developement machine (called Mac XL aka Lisa) for about 15 k bucks.
You had to qualify at an Apple course programm
Your application had to follow exactly the Mac user interface guidelines - and they didn't support anything not doing so.
All this for a machine quite new on the market, with unknown future and big competitors - kind of a relious war in those days. 'Power users don't need a pointing device...' was a common IBM statement.
We all know that the Mac style of programming applications finally succeeded.
The Commodore Amiga and Atari ST from the same time failed completely in the professional market just because of this lack of pro developers.
I don't wanna start anything like Mac is superior or about OS philosophy - just show there may be a reason for those unpopular decisions.
Myself I once didn't buy a certain developement kit just because I thought it was too expensive for me - my worst decision ever as it later turned out.
It's up to you to think about how far you want to go with your developement. Why not make a living (or part of it) from something you really like ?
If you have good ideas the Scope system will accelerate your work tremendously and this will influence your creativity too.
regards, Tom
So approx $6000 for the development platform.
That doesn't seem to bad in some ways I guess - although I won't be getting it myself for the time being. Too much music to do without tinkering with devices.
However, if I had the money to throw around it would certainly be fun - even if it's only to make strange contraptions to use on my own music.
I'm unlikely to bother too much with making a business from making Pulsar devices however.
As for the comment about strategies with the higher prices etc. I do agree with it to an extent. You weigh it up against having a wonderful open platform where everyone can get involved which is a noble philosophy in itself, or to try and moderate the quality of development on that platform by restricting entry into it.
The fact that the VST platform has a large number of absolute dud devices along with some fantastic ones doesn't seem like too much of a big deal if you didn't have to shell out so much for the platform in the first place. But Pulsar is a pricey bit of kit if you think that a large portion of devices available to you are going to be half-arsed.
I'm meandering again...
That doesn't seem to bad in some ways I guess - although I won't be getting it myself for the time being. Too much music to do without tinkering with devices.
However, if I had the money to throw around it would certainly be fun - even if it's only to make strange contraptions to use on my own music.
I'm unlikely to bother too much with making a business from making Pulsar devices however.
As for the comment about strategies with the higher prices etc. I do agree with it to an extent. You weigh it up against having a wonderful open platform where everyone can get involved which is a noble philosophy in itself, or to try and moderate the quality of development on that platform by restricting entry into it.
The fact that the VST platform has a large number of absolute dud devices along with some fantastic ones doesn't seem like too much of a big deal if you didn't have to shell out so much for the platform in the first place. But Pulsar is a pricey bit of kit if you think that a large portion of devices available to you are going to be half-arsed.
I'm meandering again...
Caleb
Happiness is the hidden behind the obvious.
Happiness is the hidden behind the obvious.
Hi,
Tom - I think your comparisons with the Mac say it all really - its a fairly niche machine (I don't want to start a flame war here - look at the figures. Most machines are Windows PC's) and there is a smaller selection of admitedly high quality software available for it.
One reason the PC took off is that IBM said that anyone could make one and anyone could write programs for them.
The history of technology has NOT looked kindly on hardware manufacturers that try to control their platforms too tightly.
Creamware might be different - after all I assume ProTools has the same kinds of restrictions so its a slightly different playing field. I do know with the things like VST that everyone and his dog can write a plugin and admitedly some of them are shite. However you do occasionaly get some real odd ball gems (I really like the Crazy Diamond String machine right now) as well as high quality entries from the likes of Waldorf and NI.
cheers
mark
Tom - I think your comparisons with the Mac say it all really - its a fairly niche machine (I don't want to start a flame war here - look at the figures. Most machines are Windows PC's) and there is a smaller selection of admitedly high quality software available for it.
One reason the PC took off is that IBM said that anyone could make one and anyone could write programs for them.
The history of technology has NOT looked kindly on hardware manufacturers that try to control their platforms too tightly.
Creamware might be different - after all I assume ProTools has the same kinds of restrictions so its a slightly different playing field. I do know with the things like VST that everyone and his dog can write a plugin and admitedly some of them are shite. However you do occasionaly get some real odd ball gems (I really like the Crazy Diamond String machine right now) as well as high quality entries from the likes of Waldorf and NI.
cheers
mark
__________________________________________
junklight - dark experimental electronics
http://www.junklight.com
junklight - dark experimental electronics
http://www.junklight.com
I tried restrict this to the point that even opponents of the Mac admitted it's software quality, but of course I knew this would followOn 2002-04-11 02:50, junklight wrote
... its a fairly niche machine...
The number of Macs sold isn't related to developemnt, but to marketing failure of the company, but this shurely belongs to a different forum.
Just one item in the story deserves to be mentioned because it's useful in a more general context: lots of people have been using their old Macs for 5 to 7 years (the same machine!) without trouble.
Now that's a real killer in todays way of business, so Apple quickly changed their product policy when they got aware of this.
Don't ever trust a manufacturer when they tell you an upgrade is necessary...
One additon to the $6000 : imho this includes a Scope/Powerpulsar 15 DSP board - so it's still expensive but a bit less.
To mjerom:
there's also NI Reaktor with the same purpose, but I wonder if both systems can compete in sound quality with Pulsar.
At least there's a huge difference in writing high quality DSP assembler to C/C++ code. Anyway tnx for the hint, I'll give it a fair try with their demos.