Forums > MaxMSP

Pluggo update?

May 6, 2009 | 1:20 pm

Can someone at Cycling give us an update on the progress
of pluggo for Max5?


May 6, 2009 | 4:18 pm

am i wrong to assume that M4L and pluggo share a lot of the same programming obstacles, and thus pluggo should be released shortly after M4L? i seem to intuitively think this, but haven’t heard anything about a projected release date for pluggo (ie, this year), while M4L seems set to be released for this year.

i am a little bit frustrated by C74 focusing on undertaking this huge project for Ableton users, when the current version of their own product for their own users still lacks one of the most useful and applicable features of previous versions.


May 6, 2009 | 4:34 pm

I agree! Pluggo was a crucial part of my music making process back when I was using Max4. I have been significantly handicapped by its absence in Max5. I hope Cycling still plans on releasing
pluggo. As great as M4L is, I really don’t feel like I should have
to pay $500+ for functionality that I already had with my existing
sequencer and pluggo.


May 6, 2009 | 5:33 pm

+1



Lid
May 6, 2009 | 5:43 pm

+2

I must sign this petition too…. I thought they would have sorted this out awhile ago…


May 6, 2009 | 7:42 pm

+5 (for me and two other pluggo pals)


May 6, 2009 | 8:17 pm

I asked David this very question ("what’s the deal with pluggo/Max 5?") at the Expo ’74 conference last week, and it seems that pluggo will not be happening any more. HOWEVER — I was as sad as I’m sure many of you are until I heard they plans Cycling are making to replace it, and I am much more excited about the possibilities they are envisioning. So I would have been a + person on this thread, except the alternatives being explored are a whole lot better. I gotta give these Cycling people some credit…

As a programmer, I can also appreciate how annoying it has been to maintain support for the ever-shifting VST ‘standard’, even though I am a major pluggo user.

brad
http://music.columbia.edu/~brad


May 6, 2009 | 8:25 pm

My feeling after participating at expo74 is that cycling74 are working on Max for Live, and they are making it very nice. They are bringing into the project far more possibilities than what the VST protocol has allowed for.
But, as Brad says, what we heard let us guess that we should not expect any export from Max to VST as what existed in Max 4.
Brad is really excited about another kind of alternative, but that won’t happen soon, as far as I understood.
Jean-François.


May 6, 2009 | 10:38 pm

excuse my ignorance, but why do people not just
leave their max 460 installed and build their
plugs in 460?
or are you keen on transparancy and presentation
mode and these things which will make pluggo runtime
about 5 times slower than 4?


May 6, 2009 | 10:49 pm
Brad Garton wrote on Wed, 06 May 2009 14:17
I was as sad as I’m sure many of you are until I heard the plans Cycling are making to replace it, and I am much more excited about the possibilities they are envisioning. …alternatives being explored are a whole lot better. I gotta give these Cycling people some credit…

Well that makes me sad as well. But I am intrigued by these
plans Cycling is making to replace it. Can you shed some light on
the details of these new plans? Is it something beyond M4L?


May 6, 2009 | 10:57 pm
Roman Thilenius wrote on Wed, 06 May 2009 16:38
excuse my ignorance, but why do people not just
leave their max 460 installed and build their
plugs in 460?
or are you keen on transparancy and presentation
mode and these things which will make pluggo runtime
about 5 times slower than 4?

Well the problem is I can not load my Max5 patches in Max4.
Presentation mode, File browser, zooming, etc. are huge
improvements and make patching easier and faster for me.
What good is a new patching environment if I can not use it?
I don’t have time to maintain two versions of a patch. To
be quite honest with you, Max5 is so nice to work in
that using Max4 is painful now.


May 6, 2009 | 11:32 pm
Anthony Palomba wrote on Thu, 07 May 2009 00:57
Well the problem is I can not load my Max5 patches in Max4.

right, that makes sense.

for some reason i was assuming that most pluggo plug-in
are only consist of 20 objects and can be (re)built in
a few minutes in max 4. but of course after more than a
year of max5 you might have a bunch of new max5 objects
and abstractions and all this plus you are used to patching
in 5.

-110


May 7, 2009 | 1:04 am

Advanced apologies for grammar etc. iv in my right arm… not great for typing.

very exciting news… but….

I love this business, the software and the people but… pluggo has repeatedly shown their unfavorable side …

this really hurts.

I bought pluggo twice. developing plugins was a decent part of my business. now developing plugins isn’t even supported on my computer and still i was told pluggo would be updated. only now do i receive this unofficial rumor that the software is officially dead.

The reason people buy software is that there is an understanding and faith that it continues to function decently. thats the same reason i buy software that requires an authorization key. i have faith that the company will keep my software authorized indefinitely. people expect that if you replace one app with another, you don’t kill the first in the interim.

I’m your biggest fan. honest. One of the reasons is transparency. Having personal, continuing support from such intelligent minds is amazing. But pluggo has felt like the run-around from the beginning. Come on guys step up and say *something* officially. Im not going all zolt on ya here. Business is business but be honest!


May 7, 2009 | 1:52 am

Could someone please explain how M4L is supposed to be better than pluggo?

I can understand the convenience of having Max opened up inside Ableton, but if pluggo were developed instead, one could simply convert patches to VSTs then use those VSTs within not only Ableton, but Cubase, Renoise, Digital Performer, etc. etc. With Pluggo, it wasn’t just Max 4 Live, it was Max 4 any audio application with VST support (which is a lot). M4L seems only mildly more convenient since you don’t have to convert the patch to a pluggo patch, and you don’t have to open Max. Big whoop.


May 7, 2009 | 8:47 am

I am interested in the motivation of the decision, i.e. maybe a real market study of the actual pluggo users who would upgrade to a version supporting 5.

I am personally responsible of 65 licenses that I would upgrade, and there is no way I am going near live for many reasons. I am certain there are a lot of us out there!

pa


May 7, 2009 | 3:22 pm

I too would be extremely disappointed if there was no way to export to VST/ AU from Max5. It would be nice to have some official comment on this.

oli


May 7, 2009 | 4:40 pm

Waiting to see what this new solution is, but I hope it doesn’t exclusively rely on Live, which is not necessarily the ideal tool for all users.


May 7, 2009 | 5:36 pm
ferguson@music.mcgill.ca wrote on Thu, 07 May 2009 17:40
which is not necessarily the ideal tool for all users.

or should I rephrase

which is necessarily not the ideal tool for most users…

pa



f.e
May 7, 2009 | 5:53 pm

Je plussoie, Pierre-Alexandre.

Live is really not my cup of tea.

Nevertheless, i’ve planned to buy it anyway with m4l, because it seems c74 has chosen Ableton to give us a timeline, instead of building a new one.

But it won’t help people who *need* to work with other workstations, *with* their pluggos…

f.e


May 7, 2009 | 6:22 pm
ferguson@music.mcgill.ca wrote on Thu, 07 May 2009 18:40
Waiting to see what this new solution is, but I hope it doesn’t exclusively rely on Live..

For the short term the solution will certainly be restricted to Max and Live. But in the long run it may evolve to a new standard format for integration of different audio applications in general.


May 7, 2009 | 7:38 pm

It’s not difficult to understand that C74 doesn’t earn much from people who build their plug-ins themselves with Max because the Pluggo Runtime version is free and these people would probably buy Max whatsoever. There is much more to gain financially from Max for Live. Rational thinking, "il faut faire tourner la boutique".

However I still hope Pluggo for Max 5 will come in a decently close future. Qui vivra verra…


May 7, 2009 | 9:00 pm
oli larkin wrote on Thu, 07 May 2009 11:22
I too would be extremely disappointed if there was no way to export to VST/ AU from Max5. It would be nice to have some official comment on this.

oli

Me too guys.

Dan


May 7, 2009 | 9:23 pm

This "pluggo" name has always been confusing. There is on the one side the ability for Max4 to export a patch as VST plugin, and on the other side the "pluggo plugins", actual pluggins that were (are?) sold by cycling74.
-the export as VST plugin "seems to be dead in its Max4 form". Short term replacement will be M4L.
-the pluggo plugins may not disappear completely. I understood that a number of them would be made available as Max for Live patches.
By the way, this is unofficial information. It’s what I understood during the expo, and I’m not a native English speaker.
J-F


May 7, 2009 | 10:32 pm

i was really bargaining on being able to export to VST when i initially bought max5.. hopefully there will be some official clarification on it soon.


May 7, 2009 | 11:50 pm

A quote from David Zicarelli upon Max 5′s release (from http://www.cycling74.com/story/2007/9/28/105551/882)

"Another thing that won’t work is Pluggo plug-ins based on Max 4. These will need to be converted to a new format based on Max 5. Unfortunately, this new format is unlikely to be ready when Max 5 is first released. If your life revolves around plug-in development, you’ll probably want to wait to upgrade until we change our plug-in support to work with the new core environment."

By using the term "unlikely", it made it seem like pluggo was right around the corner for Max 5, that it might even be possible it would be released when Max 5 was released. Could someone from C74 please explain why it has been so time consuming to develop pluggo for Max 5 and why you are now ditching it all together (much to the frustration of a large amount of your users)?

I also read this article http://www.cycling74.com/story/2009/1/15/112631/799 to better understand why M4L is so much better than pluggo. To me, it seems that with M4L you’ll be able to use Max inside Ableton to manipulate and synthesize audio and to manipulate and generate midi information………this is different from using patches as VSTs in what way exactly? Oh – Max is now "inside" Ableton…..so what?


May 8, 2009 | 12:10 am

Like many others, Pluggo is what really got me into max. I think it would be a huge bummer and a mistake for c74 to abandon it.


May 8, 2009 | 5:50 am
ComfortableInClouds wrote on Thu, 07 May 2009 16:50
I also read this article http://www.cycling74.com/story/2009/1/15/112631/799 to better understand why M4L is so much better than pluggo. To me, it seems that with M4L you’ll be able to use Max inside Ableton to manipulate and synthesize audio and to manipulate and generate midi information………this is different from using patches as VSTs in what way exactly? Oh – Max is now "inside" Ableton…..so what?

Well, I always had a tough time debugging pluggo patches. Export the vst, rescan the pluggo plugins with the pluggo app, restart the DAW to pick up the new plugs, and then reload the project. Oh wait, something is still wrong with the patch, back to the drawing table. That process got old *real* fast.

With MFL we’ll be able to work on the patch while the song in the DAW is playing, change the patch around in realtime and hear the results just like you normally can in Max. The process will be much more seamless. Plus there’s opportunities to integrate much more tightly with the DAW than is possible with standard plugin formats. I think this will make a big difference.

Of course if you aren’t a Live user, what difference does it make? Maybe they can bring an MFL-like system to other DAWs in that future. That would be pretty awesome but who knows how feasible it would be. Hopefully the lack of Pluggo 5 will be addressed one way or another at some point.


May 8, 2009 | 6:38 am
ComfortableInClouds wrote on Thu, 07 May 2009 03:52
Could someone please explain how M4L is supposed to be better than pluggo?

what could be better than pluggo is when there were
free max4cubase and max4protools runtimes.

beein able to patch inside plug-ins is on my
request list since pluggo v2.

-110


May 8, 2009 | 1:30 pm

I exported patches all the time to use as plug-ins in my DAW and I desperately miss this functionality with Max 5. I will not be switching to Live to regain this capability.


May 8, 2009 | 4:00 pm

^ What he said.


May 8, 2009 | 4:08 pm

I understand that this can be a sticky situation for developers. Don’t give an ETA and people will complain about it. Do give an ETA, and when delays occur people flip out even worse.

That being said, at least *some* sort of clarification is in order.
I’m not asking for a specific day or even month, but a ‘By the end of the year’ or even ‘by the end of next year’ would be nice. Most importantly, if this functionality is going to be discontinued (or is more than a year away), I think you owe it to your customers to let them know that.


May 9, 2009 | 6:06 am
Roman Thilenius wrote on Fri, 08 May 2009 08:38
what could be better than pluggo is when there were
free max4cubase and max4protools runtimes.

beein able to patch inside plug-ins is on my
request list since pluggo v2.

Even a Max4VST would not replace the most important feature of plug-ins, that had been underestimated from the beginning:

Using Max built plug-ins inside Max itself !!!!

This also explains why building pluggos in Max 4 doesn’t cut it, they don’t work…

Why is it a killer feature?:

A lot of people think in "effects", there are a ton of free effects in the VST format out there in the wild. If you want to access all of them you want to deal with those exactly the same way as with Max built effects. And you can load VST’s without breaking the DSP chain. The VST-wrapper I made in Max 4, is not possible without loading Max patches into vst~…

But in the end pluggo is promised officially, I don’t want to hear it’s ditched officially, maybe this petition can prevent it…

There might be annoying difficulties to create a VST wrapper for Max, but I hope cycling will look at the difficulties as a challenge and "don’t give up…"

+ 5000

Stefan


May 9, 2009 | 6:17 am
Quote:
Even a Max4VST would not replace the most
important feature of plug-ins, that had
been underestimated from the beginning:

Using Max built plug-ins inside Max itself !!!!

i have never been doing this, mainly because i
kind of stopped making new plug-ins about the
time i got the first machine updated to 460.

why are you doing this? isn´t it a bit strange
to create a plug-in with parameters and then
load them in [vst~] where it is a pain to get
access to their paramerters?
i once did the other way round, when i needed
one of my plug-ins i just used it as subpatcher,
replacing the [pp]s with inlets. seems more
straightforward.

as much as i understand that one wants to
use the custom plug-ins ALSO in max, but as
preferred way of working with "effects" i
fail to see the point.

maybe you can give an example where you are doing
this, i am interested.


May 9, 2009 | 7:18 am
Roman Thilenius wrote on Sat, 09 May 2009 00:17
Quote:
Even a Max4VST would not replace the most
important feature of plug-ins, that had
been underestimated from the beginning:

Using Max built plug-ins inside Max itself !!!!

i have never been doing this, mainly because i
kind of stopped making new plug-ins about the
time i got the first machine updated to 460.

why are you doing this? isn´t it a bit strange
to create a plug-in with parameters and then
load them in [vst~] where it is a pain to get
access to their paramerters?
i once did the other way round, when i needed
one of my plug-ins i just used it as subpatcher,
replacing the [pp]s with inlets. seems more
straightforward.

as much as i understand that one wants to
use the custom plug-ins ALSO in max, but as
preferred way of working with "effects" i
fail to see the point.

maybe you can give an example where you are doing
this, i am interested.

Just straight ahead max is procedural code. procedural code just plain isn’t modular enough. this type of system allows the maxer to put his own code in the same paradigm as GRM tools.

very very very useful. Look at jamoma!


May 9, 2009 | 7:24 am

I think this discussion needs to refer to the pluggo package of 74 plugins, and the ability to write custom pluggo plugins as two things as they are contained in two separate products.

As far as I know, what I’ve lost is this:
Cycling 74 ends updates to pluggo plugins making them inevitably dead some time in the future to protools or max.
custom pluggo plugins are no longer in my workflow in protools.
making my audio engineering world and my max world once again completely separate.
My ability to say that I have the capability to write plugins


May 9, 2009 | 11:20 am
Matthew Aidekman wrote on Sat, 09 May 2009 08:24
As far as I know, what I’ve lost is this:
Cycling 74 ends updates to pluggo plugins making them inevitably dead some time in the future to protools or max.
custom pluggo plugins are no longer in my workflow in protools.
making my audio engineering world and my max world once again completely separate.
My ability to say that I have the capability to write plugins

Good point. Love it or hate it, PT is an ‘industry standard’ for a reason.
Pluggo gave us a way to think outside the box from within the box, as it were – folks are not going to switch to Live simply to use M4Live, so it’s no substitute.
I also loved the way plugparams worked so elegantly to simplify the making of modular systems.

First we lose our beloved list to one o’ them new fangled forums, now this – how will we dinosaurs survive!
cheers
Roger


May 9, 2009 | 2:47 pm

The beauty of pluggo for me was that it allowed me to create
pluggins that encapsulated algorithmic processes that generated
notes and other control data. I could then use these in Sonar
to rapidly prototype pieces.

Having invested so much money in Sonar over the years, I am a bit
resentful that I am being forced to buy Live. Live does not
even support notation! It may be great for DJs and producers, but
I think it is a poor tool for composing.


May 9, 2009 | 2:50 pm
RabidRaja wrote on Fri, 08 May 2009 23:50
but as actor Craig Robinson in the American version of ‘The Office’ said: "It’s time you stopped fussin’ over a couple sheets of paper and started sellin’ multiple reams like a real man."

Well I am not fussin over a couple of sheets of paper.
I am fussin over the fact that I have to pay $500+ for
functionality I already had! I guess that is not a big deal to
you rich folk…


May 9, 2009 | 4:59 pm

Sorry my comment was not directed to you. I did not mean to
offend anyone…

It was more an expression of frustration. I certainly do not
want to sound like I am complaining, although it seems like I
am. I am so thankful to live a life that allows me the luxury
of time and resources to explore electronic composition.

But at the same time, I work hard for my money and would
rather spend it on other priorities, rather than having to re-buy
things I already own (i.e. another software sequencer).


May 9, 2009 | 5:11 pm

>You don’t have to pay anything(you actually make money while >paying no money) if you learn how to write your own VSTs/AUs the >real way, that’s what I’m saying.

depends how you value your time. one of the great things about "export to plugin" in Max 4.6 is that it is the only graphical programming environment that lets you build something that works with VST/AU/RTAS on mac and pc and does so with minimum hassle.

Unless you want to make plugin making your full time occupation, it is very hard as a small-time developer to learn three different sdks.

Pluggo allows me and many others to build cross platform/host free/inexpensive plugins, relatively quickly.

oli


May 9, 2009 | 6:47 pm

I bet just publishing a shell which is universally compatible would be a lucrative business.


May 9, 2009 | 8:13 pm
Anthony Palomba wrote on Sat, 09 May 2009 08:47
The beauty of pluggo for me was that it allowed me to create
pluggins that encapsulated algorithmic processes that generated
notes and other control data. I could then use these in Sonar
to rapidly prototype pieces.

Having invested so much money in Sonar over the years, I am a bit
resentful that I am being forced to buy Live. Live does not
even support notation! It may be great for DJs and producers, but
I think it is a poor tool for composing.

Depends on "how" a person composes. I use Live (as well as a bunch of other stuff) a lot for composing and find the interface works well with my flow. I started out using notation, but now never use it for working on my own music (nothing against it of course). For me being able to improv with sound samples/midi in the scenes view and record it in real time and then switch to arrangement view for further editing/tweaking like a normal sequencer is great!!



Lid
May 9, 2009 | 9:49 pm

Overall… I think the option is the important thing. The ability to create cross-DAW plugins is, in my opinion, a substantial feature/selling point. If they did chose to disable this feature I think they would ultimately be shooting themselves in the foot.

If they just need more money to develop the system then maybe they could charge something extra for a type of "add-on" feature. I’d pay if it was reasonable.

If it’s a contract-with-Ableton-thing then…. uh… well…. I’m not so much a fan of politics so I’d better not say anything at all. I own Ableton Live by the way and think it’s great software, but only for certain things. I use Cubase as my DAW workhorse.

IMHO, it does seem a bit backward to focus on a specific application like Ableton before the general plugin capability.


May 10, 2009 | 8:00 am
RabidRaja wrote on Sat, 09 May 2009 18:13
You don’t have to pay anything(you actually make money while paying no money) if you learn how to write your own VSTs/AUs the real way, that’s what I’m saying.

Max is a different way of thinking…
I know there are people who believe that lines of codes is the "real way", but they don’t know better, it is as much the "real way" as assembler…
I don’t like to go back to the stone age…

Matthew Aidekman wrote on Sat, 09 May 2009 20:47
I bet just publishing a shell which is universally compatible would be a lucrative business.

That had been called Pluggo in the past…

Stefan


May 12, 2009 | 2:40 am

Could C74 please at least comment on this thread? It’s clearly an issue that means a lot to many of their users.


May 12, 2009 | 3:26 am

Just this afternoon I was meeting with a research assistant about creating a plugin for something that we spent three years developing in MSP and for which there is a very mature and stable external object. We would like users to also be able to run the object in a DAW for various reasons (including pedagogical ones), and so we are trying to see if it is possible to create an audio units or vst version.

We just got a quote today from a very experienced programmer for over $5,000 US to do this, at a very generously reduced academic rate. If we could use pluggo I could pay a research assistant to do this in a very short time for literally a fraction of the cost. We would also have the advantage of being able to use the Max graphical user interface objects, which is not possible if the plug is developed from scratch. This adds a lot to the cost of development.

Imagine my joy at the cancellation of pluggo…


May 12, 2009 | 9:01 am
RabidRaja wrote on Tue, 12 May 2009 10:04
But I do think your effort was very cute, Stefan. Smile

they are adding up tons of arguments for a wrong statement.

that there is no pluggo runtime for max 5 does not mean
you can no longer use pluggo.

that you can not use max 5 to make plug-ins does not mean
something has been disabled or discontinued.

let me give you a practical example: i use a lot of
"pluggo shell" software. for those who dont know it,
thats controlling VST plug-in parameters from within
a host.
that this wonderful feature has been discontinued
in OSX and windows runtimes does not mean you can
no longer use it. you can still use it in OS 9.

same with max 460 vs. OSX 10.5.x, it might piss one
on that it not works 100%, but if you upgrade to 10.5
it is your fault if some software stops working because
of 10.5.

there was never a license.txt or a press release
saying all features of pluggo will be updated forever.
i´d love that, too, but i will never ask for it.

this probably sounds harsh but i didnt had my coffee yet.

-110


May 12, 2009 | 5:03 pm

What ever about cycling74 giving us a date, they owe it to their customers to confirm if this is going to be killed off or not while they are still selling the old version!

I was thinking of buying pluggo recently but unless I know it’ll be updated (even if its two years away) I’m very reluctant.



kjg
May 13, 2009 | 3:27 pm

deafening silence!


May 13, 2009 | 5:25 pm

It is my belief that this thread should be continually bumped until C74 at least comments.

I do not see why no one from C74 has even said anything. People here are claiming that C74 said at the expo said that Pluggo Runtime will not be adapted to Max 5. Does C74 have nothing to say to this? Why not at least tell us that "that is true, pluggo will be discontinued" or "no, that is not true, we are currently working on developing pluggo for Max 5," or "not right now, we are too busy creating products for Ableton users."

As for Raja’s suggestion of learning C to code your own AU/VSTs, I think everyone kind of realizes how absurd it is to suggest that as an alternative to pluggo. Most Max users are artists before programmers. Pluggo is infinitely more user friendly and time efficent than learning the intricacies of DSP and MIDI programming, along with the AU/VST SDK, not to mention the C language itself if one doesn’t know it already.

To Roman’s comment – yes, pluggo isn’t "gone", it still exists for Max 4. But this is not a solution to what this thread is addressing, which is Pluggo for Max 5. Perhaps you are content patching everything twice, but I am pretty certain most Max users are not. There’s a reason C74 hasn’t given this as a solution to pluggo being gone from Max 5.


May 13, 2009 | 9:49 pm

i agree, it’s good to find workarounds when the technology no longer suits your needs. personally, i have been using rewire~ and/or bouncing around wave files between programs. both of these methods are considerably less ideal than pluggo. rewire eats up a bunch of CPU and potentially causes crashes. importing/exporting/recording wave files gets tedious quickly.

i did not mean to attack you or come off as overly harsh – what i am essentially saying is that developing plugins in Pluggo is entirely different than developing AU/VSTs in C++. one can’t really substitute one for the other. it’s good to encourage people to learn new things, but learning how to write AU/VSTs is not a replacement for Pluggo. To say everyone agrees with that is like saying everyone agrees that driving a golf cart is different than driving a race car. these things are apples and oranges and not really interchangeable as a skill set.

Of course C74 doesn’t "owe" an explanation for pluggo. All they owe their customers is the product they paid $700 for, of which it was said only in non-binding writing that Pluggo would be developed for. Yes, it’s a free market, and if C74 wants to line their pockets by ignoring the needs of their users and instead sucking from the teat of Ableton, then that is their choice. But it’s going to build resentment, particularly when they had indicated upon Max 5′s release over a year ago that Pluggo for Max 5 was in development and are now (apparently from those who went to expo ’74) going back on their word.

I think how often this issue recurs indicates that Pluggo is a big deal to a lot of Max users, and despite the development challenges the VST format might present for Max/MSP, it is well worth investing time into to create a more useful and diverse program. If $$ is what C74 is worried about, I don’t think it would be too unreasonable to charge a nominal fee for Pluggo runtime.

I know C74 employees read these forums, and it seems like it would be so quick and easy to just post a sentence or two to quell the murmuring masses. The tacit response is unsettling from a company that is normally so helpful and involved with its community of users.


May 13, 2009 | 10:08 pm

ComfortableInClouds wrote:
"but learning how to write AU/VSTs is not a replacement for Pluggo. To say everyone agrees with that…"
this was never stated, you are drawing the assumption that it was stated on your own(read first, then feel free to jump to your own emotionally-charged conclusions if you must)
ComfortableInClouds wrote:
"particularly when they had indicated upon Max 5′s release over a year ago that Pluggo for Max 5 was in development and are now… going back on their word."
no they did NOT indicate this, you drew that conclusion from the article where it was stated that ‘These[pluggo plugins] will need to be converted to a new format based on Max 5. Unfortunately, this new format is unlikely to be ready when Max 5 is first released. If your life revolves around plug-in development, you’ll probably want to wait to upgrade until we change our plug-in support to work with the new core environment.’ < -this does NOT imply that it WILL happen at all; YOU made that assumption, but the statements in the article do NOT imply anything about ACTUAL development
ComfortableInClouds wrote:
"Yes, it’s a free market, and if C74 wants to line their pockets by ignoring the needs of their users and instead sucking from the teat of Ableton, then that is their choice. But it’s going to build resentment"
here is also another technique of propaganda which will only build resentment against your cause because you are drawing rude and crude metaphors where they don’t apply(no one is ‘lining their pockets by ignoring the needs of their users’. that just doesn’t make sense… it could also be that they don’t work on Pluggo because it’s too much time or hassle right now… you don’t know but yet you are willing to jump to conclusions about their motivations… nor are they ‘sucking from the teat of Ableton’, c’mon now… that’s just rude: now we see why they REALLY don’t owe you any explanation… who in their right mind would bother answering rude, insensitive questions?)

I continually see examples of how people would LOVE to draw conclusions but are only left with irrational assumptions.


May 13, 2009 | 10:22 pm

One more thing, it’s enough that this petition exists for Cycling74 to see. THEY DO SEE IT, the thread has 1000+ views, you can rest assured any company that hosts a forum such as this would notice that. that alone is enough… you don’t need to demand explanations… wait patiently for the product-development, that’s what they specialize in… you are not owed any explanations. The company does its best… it’s not always going to be in the best interests of every single person out there, but they do try and have proven that over the past 10+ years… When they see this petition, they’ll think about it, i’m sure, but that doesn’t mean they need to answer it… such is the move of smart user-friendly companies who might not know or even have the answer everyone is looking for… yet.

But all in all, AND WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, if you don’t know what’s going on, it’s not necessary to jump to conclusions. This was the mistake of the George W. Bush era… hopefully Americans AND the rest of the world are smartening up since then.


May 13, 2009 | 10:50 pm

‘These[pluggo plugins] will need to be converted to a new format based on Max 5. Unfortunately, this new format is unlikely to be ready when Max 5 is first released. If your life revolves around plug-in development, you’ll probably want to wait to upgrade until we change our plug-in support to work with the new core environment.’

This absolutely implies an eventual release of Pluggo for max 5. Read the last line: "until we change our plug-in support to work with the new core environment", implying that they WILL change the plug-in support. They don’t say "you’ll probably never want to upgrade because we aren’t going to change our plug-in support" or even "you’ll want to wait to see if we are able to change our plug-in support." It asks or you to wait for it to happen, not that it might happen or that it won’t, but it will….with time.

But this is just a nonbinding article David Z. put out, so arguing over the implications really has no consequence on what C74 does.

yes, my teat statement is embellished rhetoric meant to galvanize some and alienate others, and I apologize for that, it is rude and unnecessary. But however crude my remark may have been, i do think there is truth to it. Ableton is a product with many times more users than Max/MSP, and M4L is a way for C74 profit from those thousands upon thousands of users, aka drink the golden milk from mother Ableton. It is a brilliant business choice and probably the financial freedom it will afford C74 will help Max users on a 5-10 year scale. Not to mention the expansion of Max users will bring that much more development and insight into the program….hmmmm…..hadn’t thought of it like that before. Feeling a bit pacified as the consequences of a wealthy C74 with a large user base dawns on me….

Apologies for so much pathos.


May 13, 2009 | 11:18 pm

ComfortableInClouds wrote:
"This absolutely implies an eventual release of Pluggo for max 5."

No it doesn’t, it only ‘relatively’ implies that(relative to your own desire for it to imply it). To me, I see the statement, "you’ll probably want to wait to upgrade until we change our plug-in support" as saying two things: that you should wait to upgrade, and that they MIGHT change their plug-in support. Nowhere does it say to wait to upgrade because they WILL change their plug-in support. …and ya, it’s a nonbinding article…

about Ableton, Cycling74 remains an independent company and both companies have entered into a relationship seen as MUTUALLY beneficial. furthermore, Ableton has been designed over the years using Max/MSP patches as prototypes… who’s sucking who? (hehehe, sorry to put it that way, but I just had to because it sounds funny)… more seriously put, no one is sucking on anyone’s teat.

Please don’t apologize, your opinion(and even ‘pathos’)is very valuable, not to mention our little discussion here continually bumps this thread back to the top of the forum list so that, by discussing this topic, we are simply venting frustrations, views, and drawing more exposure to the pertinence of them… my view, personally though, is that you are jumping to conclusions that are not general consensus(while you may like to assume they are). I feel you are also being too demanding of a small company that is working very hard already(they put out Max5 when people complained of the new look, people like it now, they put out the API after people kept asking constantly for its whereabouts, people are developing externals quite happily now, they are working on Max4Live now… they are obviously a company comprised more of actions, NOT words… give ‘em a break. < -that's my non-apologetic view of the matter and I appreciate hearing yours, as well).


May 13, 2009 | 11:19 pm

As a participant in this thread, I’d just like to speak for myself in saying that while I’m really disappointed maybe even angred by everything that’s happened with pluggo, I don’t think the level of anger being expressed is quite appropriate. Yes it may have totally fucked up a ton of things in my artistic process. Yes "Anything in, Anything out, NOW" is dead. but… well… This is the least amount of wrong I’ve seen come from an audio company ever. shrug.

As for the comments comparing C, C++ and Max/MSP.

Stefan! I think graphical programming could absolutely positively compete with current IDEs but saying that Max, an interpreted procedural language which reduces all variables to strings or numbers, relies on other languages for virtually all of its power and as far as I know does string comparison on every function call absolutely doesn’t compare to C,C++ etc as a "real way" of programming.

None of the things I’ve mentioned are knocks against max, it’s just a different beast. I see max as a meta language. Unfortunately for all, it just no longer has a meta plugin api. For me, the language of max has really become, for the most part, a way for me to stay interested while I learn other languages. No one wants to learn c++ if all you can do for the first 2 years is output stuff to files and the terminal. My programs have pretty much been reduced to MXJ, JS, JSUI and UI objects….


May 14, 2009 | 1:08 am

I’m not so sure about this. It seems to me to read pretty clearly as "we are working on Pluggo for Max 5, but it won’t be ready right away, so perhaps you should wait until we actually have that ready before you upgrade."

I realized that I never actually voted before, so +1 from me too.

Sean

RabidRaja wrote on Wed, 13 May 2009 17:18
ComfortableInClouds wrote:
"This absolutely implies an eventual release of Pluggo for max 5."

No it doesn’t, it only ‘relatively’ implies that(relative to your own desire for it to imply it). To me, I see the statement, "you’ll probably want to wait to upgrade until we change our plug-in support" as saying two things: that you should wait to upgrade, and that they MIGHT change their plug-in support. Nowhere does it say to wait to upgrade because they WILL change their plug-in support. …and ya, it’s a nonbinding article…


May 14, 2009 | 1:36 am

@ferguson
But by mere fact that you are interpreting it one way, saying, "i’m not so sure of this…" and I, myself, am interpreting it another way, we both prove that the statement has no absolute interpretation. We could put it to a vote and I’m sure there would be many people who disagree with both you and me. The only thing being proven is that ALL interpretations of the statements made are subjective and never objective(individual interpretations of what was stated do not count as definitive facts about what was actually stated; people can go on and on about what they think was ‘implied’ but this is never fact, only mere attempts to put words into another person’s mouth).

You say that it "SEEMS to me", and that implies that it is NOT reading "pretty clearly". And then you go on to say what you think it says but nowhere in the article does it actually say what you say it says. Therefore, you are projecting what you wish it meant onto what it actually states(just like the rest of us).

Besides, David Z’s words are not the word of God, nor is the article anything but a mere guess at project-direction.


May 14, 2009 | 1:37 am
ferguson@music.mcgill.ca wrote on Wed, 13 May 2009 19:08
I’m not so sure about this. It seems to me to read pretty clearly as "we are working on Pluggo for Max 5, but it won’t be ready right away, so perhaps you should wait until we actually have that ready before you upgrade."

I realized that I never actually voted before, so +1 from me too.

Sean

RabidRaja wrote on Wed, 13 May 2009 17:18
ComfortableInClouds wrote:
"This absolutely implies an eventual release of Pluggo for max 5."

No it doesn’t, it only ‘relatively’ implies that(relative to your own desire for it to imply it). To me, I see the statement, "you’ll probably want to wait to upgrade until we change our plug-in support" as saying two things: that you should wait to upgrade, and that they MIGHT change their plug-in support. Nowhere does it say to wait to upgrade because they WILL change their plug-in support. …and ya, it’s a nonbinding article…

Whatever the intent, this argument proves clarification is needed. If cycling suggests that I should hang back at an older version until a newer one is ready that’s fine but as far as I can tell 4.6 saving plugins on my current system is broken.


May 14, 2009 | 1:55 am
RabidRaja wrote on Wed, 13 May 2009 19:36

Besides, David Z’s words are not the word of God, nor is the article anything but a mere guess at project-direction.

ya, i feel like quoting myself, here, because i think people are trying to ‘imply’ a whole bunch of things which seem rash: ‘this person said this and therefore it is implied that…’ …kinda like saying: when Obama says, ‘we are not a Christian country’, this ‘implies’ that Obama is unfriendly to Christians or is perhaps a Muslim… meanwhile, there is no absolute truth in those implications. surely, when I put it this way, you can see the danger of drawing conclusions based on what anyone believes is ‘implied’.

it just doesn’t work like that, the article is not a contract and if you continue to knit-pick about articles which were meant to give a taste of what is only HOPED to come about in Max5, then you prove that such articles need not be published anymore and also, most importantly, that Cycling74 should absolutely cease to give any more comments(here or anywhere) about future-projections/possibilities to its users due to how overblown the mere subjective implications become.


May 14, 2009 | 2:36 am

rabid, when someone says "you’ll probably want to wait at the corner until i pick you up," do you think it’s only a possibility that they will pick you up? or do you think that the implication is you will eventually be picked up? now replace "wait at the corner" with "wait to upgrade until we change our plug-in support to work with the new core environment."

I think Sean used the phrase "I’m not so sure" because Canadians tend to speak in gentle terms. When you ask someone to "wait" for something, the idea is that it will happen eventually. C74 asked people to "wait", and wait we have…..all 386 days…..

the semantics of David’s statement is a pretty trivial thing to bicker over, but I honestly do not think there is any ambiguity in the statement.

+1, btw.


May 14, 2009 | 2:52 am

But there IS ambiguity: if someone says, "you’ll PROBABLY want to wait…" then i see this as ambiguous(you’re merely trying to pose a situation that might get me to see what you want me to see through some sort of imposed sense-of-desperation of being picked up at a corner but it just doesn’t work that way).

If we don’t see eye to eye, that just goes to show you that what you attempt to ‘imply’ will NEVER be fact. You can’t force me to see English the way you read it if the words used don’t, in fact, say what you’re merely implying.


May 14, 2009 | 2:56 am
RabidRaja wrote on Wed, 13 May 2009 19:55
RabidRaja wrote on Wed, 13 May 2009 19:36

Besides, David Z’s words are not the word of God, nor is the article anything but a mere guess at project-direction.

ya, i feel like quoting myself, here, because i think people are trying to ‘imply’ a whole bunch of things which seem rash: ‘this person said this and therefore it is implied that…’ …kinda like saying: when Obama says, ‘we are not a Christian country’, this ‘implies’ that Obama is unfriendly to Christians or is perhaps a Muslim… meanwhile, there is no absolute truth in those implications. surely, when I put it this way, you can see the danger of drawing conclusions based on what anyone believes is ‘implied’.

it just doesn’t work like that, the article is not a contract and if you continue to knit-pick about articles which were meant to give a taste of what is only HOPED to come about in Max5, then you prove that such articles need not be published anymore and also, most importantly, that Cycling74 should absolutely cease to give any more comments(here or anywhere) about future-projections/possibilities to its users due to how overblown the mere subjective implications become.

I’ve always found it fairly easy to figure out when things are said casually by cycling 74 employees. With the new cycling website, most of it has to do with the medium. If it’s posted to the main page rather than the forum, I think it can be taken as official. When I read an unofficial post about 1.5 yrs in advance that someone had transparent UI objects running in max that wasn’t the word of god. When cycling posts an article written by the head honcho on the main page about a lost feature, thats the word of god.

There… transparency stays, officialness stays intact.


May 14, 2009 | 3:16 am

if you reread the sentence, you’ll see that the word "probably" wasn’t refering to whether pluggo for max 5 was being developed or not, it was referring to whether or not the person who uses Max for developing plug ins wants to buy Max 5.here is the full statement once again, released by the head of the company, in a front page article:

‘These [pluggo plugins] will need to be converted to a new format based on Max 5. Unfortunately, this new format is unlikely to be ready when Max 5 is first released. If your life revolves around plug-in development, you’ll probably want to wait to upgrade until we change our plug-in support to work with the new core environment.’

I really do not see any ambiguity.

whatever. let us just max in peace.


May 14, 2009 | 3:47 am

I do see ambiguity:

"These [plugins] will need to be" does not mean that they WILL be.

"…you’ll probably want to wait" does not mean that you will be guaranteed anything AFTER waiting.

"until we change our plug-in support to work with the new core environment" does not mean that they WILL change their plug-in support(although it is suggested, this is mere suggestion that it might happen, but I see it as them merely thinking about it). It’s just part of the same statement that you should keep waiting… not that something will definitely happen as a result of that waiting.

But ya, like you said, "whatever, let us just Max in peace" which does not mean that we WILL actually max in peace < -oh wait, i got carried away with that last one Wink


May 14, 2009 | 3:51 am
RabidRaja wrote on Wed, 13 May 2009 21:02
matt wrote:
"There… transparency stays, officialness stays intact."

Fair enough. If you want to see it as official, that’s fine. I still don’t and this is a public forum where you are arguing opinions with others who have the right to their opinion. And my opinion stays the same: not only is it merely an unofficial statement GUESSING at future directions, it is also not saying that anything IS in development nor WILL be in development. This is proven by the fact of what words WERE used and is NOT disproven by what additional words people would like to imply from the actual words used.

People here are just trying to put words into other people’s mouths out of desperation. I’m not so desperate. I read the article, it says only that ‘people will probably want to wait until…’(after until is a set of actions that are NOT stated as being DEFINITE; nowhere does it say this WILL happen). Still, yet again I say, none of you know what’s going to happen, so continue to wait if you must, but I don’t think Cycling owes you anything(words, actions, or otherwise)… at least not until they are good, willing and ready to divulge. That’s their prerogative.

I’m curious how exactly do you reconcile the fact that it’s been my continued and reiterated position that we need clarification and the idea that I’ve put official words about the fate of pluggo in the words in cycling’s CEO’s mouth.

this may be my last post depending on the redundancy of your response.


May 14, 2009 | 4:35 am

@Matt:
correct me if i’m wrong, but you are trying to say that the front-page articles, especially if they are an interview with the CEO, is some kind of ‘official’ statement? but there is no contract that makes Cycling74 legally bound to the words in these articles. so this just seemed like you’re drawing your own conclusion and putting that conclusion out there as something that is fact while it is merely subjective opinion(at which point, it’s a bit like trying to put words about what you believe into Cycling’s mouth regarding what they actually said and what the articles actually mean: what they actually mean is nothing obligatory, in my humble opinion).

Perhaps we are misunderstanding each other, and by ‘official’ you just mean ‘public’? while i’m assuming by ‘official’ you mean ‘legally-bound’ or even ‘socially-obligated’ or even ‘obligated’ at all?

(you also wrote about how this might be your last post… but i fail to see why i should care? not meaning to be insulting but maybe you thought that would solicit some more thoughtful response from me through threat of your withdrawal from the conversation? in which case, that seems like a redundant effort in and of itself because it makes it seem like i should only say what you want me to say while we both know this is not right nor will it ever happen (even while i’m also happy to be helping all of you by continually debating here thus causing the thread to continually be bumped up to the top))

Moreover, I think i was just summing up the fact that "people are"(plural: meaning you and others, for different reasons, are attempting to draw fact where only individual interpretation-of-implication exists)… so actually, I didn’t mean to detract from your ‘need’ for clarification by reiterating that nothing is owed along those lines.


May 14, 2009 | 6:59 am
RabidRaja wrote on Wed, 13 May 2009 22:35
@Matt:
correct me if i’m wrong, but you are trying to say that the front-page articles, especially if they are an interview with the CEO, is some kind of ‘official’ statement? but there is no contract that makes Cycling74 legally bound to the words in these articles. so this just seemed like you’re drawing your own conclusion and putting that conclusion out there as something that is fact while it is merely subjective opinion(at which point, it’s a bit like trying to put words about what you believe into Cycling’s mouth regarding what they actually said and what the articles actually mean: what they actually mean is nothing obligatory, in my humble opinion).

Sure. David is a successful CEO and prominent figure in the world of electronic music, but I would never peg him as the sort of person that would misrepresent his intentions because it was legal and he could sell more units. Is that what you expect from the companies you support? I feel like a ton of people here have met and conversed with the staff at cycling and they all are honest, good intentioned and hardworking people. They aren’t bail-out-rage worthy corporate types.

Conversely, I’m not accusing David, Luke, Gregory, or anyone else of being liars or mean spirited. I just feel, as a customer, uninformed about the product and was hoping for clarification. Of course we have no right to it, but I think we have a right to ask.

Am I coming off like an argumentative ass here? Because I’m trying to extremely gentle.


May 14, 2009 | 10:42 am

"misrepresent his intentions because it was legal and he could sell more units"? say what? now you’ve proven that you are definitely just putting words in someone else’s mouth but i have no idea who’s at this point, because NO ONE has said anything like what you’ve mentioned there..
i’m saying the article doesn’t imply OR state anything obligated… you seem to be on a whole different trip, there(it’s not like he’s misleading you on purpose, perhaps if anything, he may have made the mistake in assuming that he was dealing with emotionally mature readers who wouldn’t blow his prognostications of what COULD happen in the future way out of proportion into their own assumptions about what WILL happen)
i don’t think you’re coming off as an ass or argumentative: where do you get that notion, anyways? to be argumentative, you’d have to first pose a coherent argument wouldn’t you? that first paragraph in your last statement wasn’t coherent at all. and, besides, it’s not like i’ve said anything that would imply that i’ve taken offense or anything… at least, i hope not, lemme know if you’ve misunderstood yet another thing about me… Wink

just speaking your opinion, right? just like i am mine… of course you have a right to ask, just as i’m saying Cycling has a right NOT to answer. you DO or MAY have the right to clarification but Cycling ALSO has the right to non-disclosure.
am i coming off as argumentative? because i’m just having fun speaking my individual mind no matter what i’m coming off as. so many times in the past, so many high-maintenance users have demanded this or that from Cycling… so I love to chime in at those moments and remind people to come back down to earth as Cycling need not entertain your ego.
But hey, at least if you’ve bothered to answer, then I must not have been redundant in my last statement. Glad you decided to stick around.
Cheers!


May 14, 2009 | 1:50 pm

I agree that relativism is always a good way to diffuse a debate and I don’t think this is about anyone’s ego but I guess you are entitled to your opinion!


May 14, 2009 | 2:53 pm

Wow – this is turning into a Gearslutz argument – rock on!


May 14, 2009 | 4:03 pm
rhizomeman wrote on Thu, 14 May 2009 08:53
Wow – this is turning into a Gearslutz argument – rock on!

No friend, the WOW is all yours… No other comment on the planet would have made me run away from this thread quicker! Was making extreme attempts to be polite in my language but *last post* for obvious reasons


May 14, 2009 | 4:12 pm
rhizomeman wrote on Thu, 14 May 2009 08:53
Wow – this is turning into a Gearslutz argument – rock on!

Haha, gearslutz argument.. You have to love it though ;P

Seems like an argument when everyone who’s arguing would not be against the release of a new Pluggo, just some people are saying that it can be done in code… Sure it can, but I suck at coding in C/C++.. I don’t even really know how to set up XCode to work so I can make plugins, its all very complicated compared to MAX for me, and not something im particularly crazy about putting a lot of time into.

As a MAX user who did expect Pluggo to be developed for MAX 5 I am disappointed to be hearing all this. One of the main things that attracted me to MAX was the ability to use patches I made easily inside of my DAW (not ableton!!). Yeah, there’s rewire, but I find it to be an incredibly annoying way to work.


May 14, 2009 | 4:36 pm

i have a question for you.

if cycling74 would announce tomorrow that
pluggo 5.0 will be ready at October 21th
16:45 o´clock, how will this affect your
daily work?

and what will you do if it is not ready at
the promised date?




kjg
May 14, 2009 | 5:19 pm

well hooray! now we know.

Sad


May 14, 2009 | 5:23 pm

::sigh::


May 14, 2009 | 7:59 pm

Exactly the type of message I was expecting. Totally understandable that cycling would do this in the face of events beyond their control. A little sad but I just accodently dropped my MacBook and the screen cracked so maybe that’ll be my new dedicated max rig in my studio.


May 14, 2009 | 8:10 pm

so now that we know the answer, lets forget about
the pluggo debate and look forward for a new topic
to struggle about.

politics could work well, or wait, did we already
have a Mac vs PC discussion here in 1999 or not?


May 14, 2009 | 8:21 pm
Roman Thilenius wrote on Thu, 14 May 2009 13:10
so now that we know the answer, lets forget about
the pluggo debate and look forward for a new topic
to struggle about.

politics could work well, or wait, did we already
have a Mac vs PC discussion here in 1999 or not?

Probably, but that was a while ago. Maybe it’s time to refresh the argument as Windows 7 vs Snow Leopard.

Or, given the context of this thread, might be time for Live vs Logic vs Sonar vs Cubase vs Pro Tools. Battle Royale style to the death. Ready… Fight!


May 14, 2009 | 8:28 pm

or a plea for Max4NuendoCubaseOSX.

+1


May 14, 2009 | 9:20 pm

And Max4Sonar too!


May 14, 2009 | 10:12 pm

max4pluggo please…


May 15, 2009 | 12:09 am

Adam Murray wrote on Thu, 14 May 2009 14:21
"Or, given the context of this thread, might be time for Live vs Logic vs Sonar vs Cubase vs Pro Tools. Battle Royale style to the death. Ready… Fight!"

Please! This debate is moot anyways, since analogue is better than all of them.

…and once the dust clears…

Max vs Reaktor!

Lets go!


May 15, 2009 | 12:13 am

http://srslyguyz.com/



bdc
May 15, 2009 | 12:21 am

For those of us that use the Pluggo plug-ins, maybe C74 should consider open-sourcing the patches so we can continue to use them within Max 5.


May 15, 2009 | 12:26 am
bdc wrote on Fri, 15 May 2009 02:21
For those of us that use the Pluggo plug-ins, maybe C74 should consider open-sourcing the patches so we can continue to use them within Max 5.

no, but open-source the free pluggo runtime
when sooner or later the first hosts come
out which no longer work with v350.


May 15, 2009 | 3:38 am
Roman Thilenius wrote on Thu, 14 May 2009 18:26
bdc wrote on Fri, 15 May 2009 02:21
For those of us that use the Pluggo plug-ins, maybe C74 should consider open-sourcing the patches so we can continue to use them within Max 5.

no, but open-source the free pluggo runtime
when sooner or later the first hosts come
out which no longer work with v350.

As I understand it, opensourcing pluggo would essentially be opensourcing MaxMSP, which I doubt they want to do.

Also my vote for the next Max-For-Something is Max For Pro Tools.

Max for VST would be nice (I don’t care about RTAS on it’s own merits, as there are wrappers that might work, and AU is meh).

Or even Max for Pro Tools Audiosuite, that’d be useful.


May 15, 2009 | 7:04 am

"we have arranged with Ableton to provide Max for Live discounts to plug-in customers. "

Nice. But what about Live itself?

I really feel misleaded. I just cannot afford to buy new software every now and then, and so does the conservatory I work for too.

Bad news for education.

BOO! BOO! BOO!


May 15, 2009 | 9:35 am
Andrew Pask wrote on Thu, 14 May 2009 19:09

http://www.cycling74.com/story/2009/5/14/101259/594

Too bad, though understandable. The most regrettable thing is that now there is no longer a way to make a commercial plugin with Max. That reduces the use of Max as a ‘serious’ programming language, which I believe means that the overall quality of Max will be improving less rapidly.

I vote for a closed-source option for Max for Live. Not necessarily a cracker-safe implementation, but rather something that doesn’t encourage re-using the source code.

Mattijs


May 15, 2009 | 11:22 am
Quote:
As I understand it, opensourcing pluggo would essentially be opensourcing MaxMSP, which I doubt they want to do.

i dont think pluggo runtime 3 and max 5 do have
much in common. max 5 is a hughe program with
thousands of features, the pluggo runtime
does not much more than loading the objects
and make the pluggo binaries work in the
different hosts.
the most important things which would have to be
updated to make the existing pluggo runtimes
work with future hosts are the few pluggo-specific
externals.
plus eventually jsui, lcd and things like that,
which have some problems even in current version.


May 15, 2009 | 2:40 pm

I vote for a Max vs. Pd discussion, maybe there is a way to create Pd based plug-ins which work in Max 5…

Stefan


May 15, 2009 | 3:47 pm

Well, colour me disappointed.

I learnt to use Max 4 at university, where I purchased the 9 month educational license. As a result, I have no Max 4 license, and purchased Max 5 instead after I graduated to continue using it.

I used Max to write plugins for people to download (www.soundninjastudios.net/code.html) and also to use in my own personal work (I currently work in Logic Cool. I don’t intend on buying Live, as it doesn’t fit my workflow in the slightest and besides, I can’t afford it.

The ability to compile plugins was a feature I loved, and a feature I very much looked forward to coming back. I won’t go so far as to say that I’m regretting my purchase of Max 5, because plugins wasn’t the be all and end all of what I do with Max, but I most likely won’t be purchasing any further Max upgrades or Cycling ’74 software.


May 15, 2009 | 6:54 pm
Mattijs wrote on Fri, 15 May 2009 03:35

The most regrettable thing is that now there is no longer a way to make a commercial plugin with Max. That reduces the use of Max as a ‘serious’ programming language, which I believe means that the overall quality of Max will be improving less rapidly.

That’s certainly an interesting definition of "serious."


May 15, 2009 | 7:41 pm

Actually I feel it’s a serious step backwards.
I am a serious software developer, when I am
contracted to develop an appliction, I want to
be able to give them a quality executable (or VST dll)
that meets their technical requirements.

Ableton live does not enter into that equation,
nor should it. I feel like I have lost an
invaluble tool, what a shame.

Looks like its JUCE time…


May 15, 2009 | 7:44 pm

C74 is making a huge mistake by abandoning pluggo. if it’s not cost effective, then make it cost effective by charging people. many people want the ability to quickly and easily develop VSTs.


May 16, 2009 | 3:20 am
ComfortableInClouds wrote on Fri, 15 May 2009 13:44
C74 is making a huge mistake by abandoning pluggo. if it’s not cost effective, then make it cost effective by charging people. many people want the ability to quickly and easily develop VSTs.

Couldn’t agree more, I’d pay for it. As many others have said, Live is cool but it doesn’t support my workflow and I don’t like it as a DAW.. I don’t get on with it.


May 16, 2009 | 9:23 am
Gregory Taylor wrote on Fri, 15 May 2009 20:54

That’s certainly an interesting definition of "serious."

Don’t you think? As you know (since I have been spamming this opinion whenever possible (and impossible)), I’m always hoping for Max to become acknowledged as a bigger player in applications development in general.

My experience is that when forced to deliver results in a commercial project, where serious money is involved, with serious requirements, when I can spend a serious amount of time working on it, there is 1) a much higher chance to run into bugs and inconsistencies in the tools I’m working with and 2) the necessity to somehow get them fixed. That’s why I believe there is a connection between the quality of a programming language and the amount of money involved in the projects that it is being used in.

As for Max for Live, I am hoping to spend a lot of time working with it. But if there is no possibility for me to eventually earn money doing so, chances are the whole thing is going to be transferred to the dark hours of my spare time. And that would be a real shame, you guys did a seriously great job on MFL.

Mattijs


May 16, 2009 | 4:00 pm
stefantiedje wrote on Fri, 15 May 2009 16:40
I vote for a Max vs. Pd discussion, maybe there is a way to create Pd based plug-ins which work in Max 5…

Stefan

everyone is free to create a set of custom externals
or invent some method of making "plug-ins" for max 5.

btw, has any of you tried to use pluggo _patches in
max 5 yet? wont the 460 version of the pluggo specific
external work in max 5 so that you can at least develop
in 5 for the time beeing? i am going to try this now.

-110


May 16, 2009 | 4:16 pm
Mattijs wrote on Sat, 16 May 2009 11:23
Gregory Taylor wrote on Fri, 15 May 2009 20:54
That’s certainly an interesting definition of "serious."

Don’t you think?

My experience is that when forced to deliver results in a commercial project, where serious money is involved, with serious requirements, when I can spend a serious amount of time working on it,

as if there would have been spent serious money
and a serious amount of time in the 5 existing
commercial pluggos from our 5 friends.

you idea is right that the existnace of (even)
commercial plug-ins is not bad for us developers
(and cycling), because it puts the maxmsp "language"
on the same level of dev tool than C++, but there
is no need to exaggerate.
it is not like we would be the waves-killers and
pluggo was about to become the next post pro standard,
we´re just a small group of freaks publishing a few
lines of code for fun.


May 17, 2009 | 10:06 am
Roman Thilenius wrote on Sat, 16 May 2009 18:16
as if there would have been spent serious money
and a serious amount of time in the 5 existing
commercial pluggos from our 5 friends.

Not necessarily in Pluggo, I’m talking about Max in general. I made a decent living working exclusively with Max for the past 3.5 years. I almost finished making a commercial plugin with Pluggo when Max 5 came out. I suspended the project until Max 5 would support building plugins..

Roman Thilenius wrote on Sat, 16 May 2009 18:16
it is not like we would be the waves-killers and
pluggo was about to become the next post pro standard,
we´re just a small group of freaks publishing a few
lines of code for fun.

Well, the waves plugins are all about quality but certainly not about creativity, which is where Pluggo could have filled a great gap. But that’s all beside the point; without something to prevent copying source code, the chance of people spending a substantial amount of time on a plugin decreases, which is a pity.

Mattijs


May 17, 2009 | 7:39 pm

it’s annoying news, but understandable. Personally i quite like Live, so I am not too bothered.

For any small time commercial plugin developers (with a little C/C++ experience who are wondering where to go from here I would like to mention IPlug by cockos, which is a nice wrapper for the VST/AU apis (with it’s own graphics api) and is cross platform. It’s not that mature or well documented at the moment, but it’s getting better. It is similar to JUCE, but doesn’t have the £800 license fee for a closed source product and seems more lightweight/efficient to me.

http://www.cockos.com/wdl/

oli


May 18, 2009 | 2:56 pm
oli larkin wrote on Sun, 17 May 2009 13:39
… It is similar to JUCE, but doesn’t have the £800 license fee for a closed source product…

I did not realize the JUCE required a licensing fee. Lame.

Oh pluggo, how I miss thee…


Viewing 103 posts - 1 through 103 (of 103 total)