Forums > MaxMSP

What i'd like to see in future versions of Max

October 29, 2006 | 10:50 am

I’ve been mulling this over for a while in my own head and thought it’d make an interesting thread.

Personally, the thing that i’d most like to see is an extended Undo feature. As it stands, one undo step just isn’t enough for me. I’m not sure how feasible it is to implement but i’m quite a compulsive undoer, maybe 5 or 10 steps would be enough, but the single step is just an annoyance.

I’m sure there’s plenty of more usefull suggestions out there, but for me that’s the thing i’d most like to see!

Anyone care to add theirs?


October 29, 2006 | 2:33 pm

…and the undo we halve already should reconnect.


October 29, 2006 | 2:53 pm

Yeah for sure, more undo would be great, and as Ive said a million times, a dependable sample accurate metro/tempo. You guys should also implement the "Max Toolbox" as part of the standard features… those shortcuts to plug in multiple objects are so helpful!! (http://debussy.music.ubc.ca/muset/toolbox.html)


October 29, 2006 | 3:02 pm

"I suspect that analysis of other prominent files in commercial
software will produce similar results as it seems that some people
have an allergy to paying for software…which is especially ironic
when those same people are also software developers, but hopefully
there’ll be an element of karmic readjustment at some point ;-)"

it works BOTH WAYS. Company use successful copy protection and then
abuses it. You can’t rattle off arguments of supply and demand and
then drive your prices UP when you use an ilok key. You can’t put
weird clauses in your liscence. If your going to license software
like a physical object, you have to drive your price DOWN because it
limits the ability of the user.

the point is, its not just the software consumer running around with
his/her head cut off. its also the developer. and its an issue of
mistrust.

I’ll pay for max, I’ll pay for photoshop. I’d pirate protools if I
could.

-matt



jln
October 29, 2006 | 3:22 pm


October 29, 2006 | 3:52 pm

On Oct 29, 2006, at 9:53 AM, Nicholas C. Raftis III wrote:

> and as Ive said a million times, a dependable sample accurate metro/
> tempo.

it’s called [train~], no?


October 29, 2006 | 4:18 pm

No train~
Yes to the wrong link to max toolbox


October 29, 2006 | 4:33 pm

train~ comes with MSP. you might try reinstalling max/msp to get it.
the right outlet of train~ works great!

On Oct 29, 2006, at 11:18 AM, Nicholas C. Raftis III wrote:

>
> No train~
> Yes to the wrong link to max toolbox


October 29, 2006 | 4:42 pm

I have train~
see other threads on the subject



wak
October 29, 2006 | 5:01 pm

I would love a snip/splice feature that would; snip (delete) an object but retain the signal path by re-connecting the prior to the following object; and splice (paste) an object between two others and make the appropriate connections.


October 29, 2006 | 6:41 pm

One feature I absolutely rely upon is the clicking on send/receive
and value objects (in run mode) to find their instances within large
patches.

I would love to see this extended to colls and tables as well, since
I use a ton of named tables and colls.

I do try to use the grab object with a named send object (as in
[grab 1 to_mycoll] with "to_mycoll" being a receive object attached
to "mycoll"), but I’m not always that diligent. As a result, I have
subpatchers buried within subpatchers that can alter the coll
(obviously not good programming style…).

Oh, and another vote to get rid of the print to the Max window when a
coll is read….


October 29, 2006 | 7:17 pm

Quote: Axiom-Crux wrote on Sun, 29 October 2006 07:53
—————————————————-
>Yeah for sure, more undo would be great, and as Ive said a >million times, a dependable sample accurate metro/tempo.

There are a lot of things you could have put on the
picnic table on Memorial Day in 2004 that would be
stale and useless by now.

examples/sequencing-looping/audio-rate-sequencing-looping/1-phasor-metronome.pat

isn’t one of them. Perhaps it’s the exhaustion of saying
things a million times that kept you from finding this.

The examples folder contains many riches for the seeker.

>You guys should also implement the "Max Toolbox" as part of the standard features… those shortcuts to plug in multiple objects are so helpful!!

Why not just use *them?*


October 29, 2006 | 7:29 pm

Or, if looking in the examples folder is too darned
hard,

max v2;
#N vpatcher 10 59 349 383;
#P window setfont "Sans Serif" 12.;
#P window linecount 2;
#P comment 57 253 250 196620 NOTE: The audio must be on for the phasor~ object to work properly….;
#P user ezdac~ 10 253 54 286 0;
#P window linecount 1;
#P newex 10 84 44 196620 >=~ 0;
#P newex 10 58 45 196620 delta~;
#P button 10 136 25 0;
#P newex 10 110 44 196620 edge~;
#P newex 10 33 97 196620 phasor~ 1.;
#P connect 0 0 3 0;
#P connect 3 0 4 0;
#P connect 4 0 1 0;
#P connect 1 0 2 0;
#P pop;


October 29, 2006 | 9:34 pm

Man this is annoying, Ive looked at everything, been using max for 4 years now, I know my options. I don’t desire a phasor clock, I want a bang on sample accurate timing that doesn’t drift, no more responses please.


October 29, 2006 | 10:09 pm

yes hasn’t this thread been played out already? it was interesting the
first time, but not so much the next few…

On 29 Oct 2006, at 21:34, Nicholas C. Raftis III wrote:

>
> Man this is annoying, Ive looked at everything, been using max for 4
> years now, I know my options. I don’t desire a phasor clock, I want a
> bang on sample accurate timing that doesn’t drift, no more responses
> please.
> –
> -=ili!ili=- http://www.Axiom-Crux.net -=ili!ili=-


October 30, 2006 | 3:09 am

On Oct 29, 2006, at 7:02 AM, matthew aidekman wrote:

> "I suspect that analysis of other prominent files in commercial
> software will produce similar results as it seems that some people
> have an allergy to paying for software…which is especially ironic
> when those same people are also software developers, but hopefully
> there’ll be an element of karmic readjustment at some point ;-)"
>
> it works BOTH WAYS. Company use successful copy protection and
> then abuses it. You can’t rattle off arguments of supply and
> demand and then drive your prices UP when you use an ilok key. You
> can’t put weird clauses in your liscence. If your going to license
> software like a physical object, you have to drive your price DOWN
> because it limits the ability of the user.
>
> the point is, its not just the software consumer running around
> with his/her head cut off. its also the developer. and its an
> issue of mistrust.

As someone who is about to release a suite of plugins, I’ve put quite
an amount of thought into this over the last several months. I’ve
come to several conclusions, which may or may not be accurate, but
that I’ll be testing out in my licensing and copy protection.

I think a developer is mainly going to see sales from that percentage
of possible users who are honest. Yes, there will be some buyers who
will buy because they can’t find a crack, but they are not nearly the
majority of sales. I decided to focus on the honest customers…
people who, like me, pay for what they use because it supports the
people who make their tool and allows those people to continue. My
part of the bargain is to provide the best software I can for a
reasonable price and not cripple my honest customers. Max apps and
plugins are pretty easy to crack for anyone with a little knowledge
of what’s under the hood, so I’ve chosen to ignore the segment which
trades in them, and who will be there no matter what I charge or how
I copy protect, and place my trust in those who do not.

But because money taints everything it touches, we are conditioned by
capitalism to pay first, use after. This is why shareware and
donation-ware don’t really seem to generate income for most. The
sale is never closed. Trial software seems like it might be the best
way to go… Max/MSP for instance, hooked me during the trial, and I
was very worried I might not receive my authorization before the
trial expired. (Not that I needed to be… the auth arrived swiftly.)

So, since I’m not interested in limiting users and generating
mistrust by forcing draconian copy protection on them, but I am
interested in getting paid, I decided to go with the following:

Downloadable demo plugins with pink noise bursts – can be fully
checked out but isn’t fully functional

Serial protection – after purchase, user gets a serial by email which
they plug into an authorization app that removes the pink noise. I
hate licenses that bind to a single machine, so I don’t want to visit
that particular horror on anyone else.

License terms – a user’s personal domain. A user can install on any
machines they own and are the primary user of.

Price – *low*. This removes what may be the greatest incentive to
use cracked versions, and I’ll hopefully make up for those by
increased sales as a result of the inexpensive price.

> I’ll pay for max, I’ll pay for photoshop. I’d pirate protools if I
> could.

I’m not so sure about Photoshop these days. After paying $1200 for
CS2 only to find it has server based authorization and I can only
install it on my laptop OR my desktop, but not both, I’m pretty
unhappy with Adobe.

Vlad

Vlad Spears
Urbi et orbi
http://www.daevlmakr.com

http://www.2secondfuse.com


October 30, 2006 | 2:04 pm

Quote: Axiom-Crux wrote on Sun, 29 October 2006 07:53
—————————————————-
> more undo would be great … You guys should also implement the "Max Toolbox" as part of the standard features… those shortcuts to plug in multiple objects are so helpful!! (http://debussy.music.ubc.ca/muset/toolbox.html)
—————————————————-

another big vote for all of that here, too. undo should reconnect, for sure.


October 30, 2006 | 8:57 pm

Vlad,

I have to confess that i don’t know of many cracked software users who’d actually buy the product because they couldn’t find a crack, instead they’ll spend hours (and days) in the darkest parts of the internet searching before bemoaning that they can’t get the software, whilst of course asking everyone they know if anyone has found a copy yet!

Only yesterday i was asked by an acquaintance at University if i’d found a cracked version of Cubase 4, i was restrained enough not to launch into a tirade about the ethics of using cracked software, (after all, if there’s a more worthy candidate than Steinberg i haven’t encountered them yet), so i glibly pointed out that i’m not a Cubase fan and i’ll quite happilly stick with my copy of Cubase SE 1.06 (the last one before dongle protection)…and that’ll be the last cash Steinberg ever see from me.

I agree entirely with what Matthew said about companies who use "successful" copy protection and then abuse it, Steinberg and Adobe both spring to mind in that regard, although to be fair these are some of the most obvious targets for the reverse engineering community…this could of course be due to the desirability of the products as much as the arrogance and mean spirited nature of the companies themselves though!

The problem with "crack users" ;-) is not that they can’t afford it, more that they don’t see why they should pay for it when they can have it for free! This also explains why donation-ware rarely succeeds in generating much of an income too, they’re part of the same syndrome, although donation-ware saves the hassle of risking viruses and other nasties by searching for a crack.

I like the idea of *low* priced software although i’m not sure it’ll bring the habitual crack users into the buying domain, although it will no doubt draw those of us who are poverty stricken (like myself) into your customer base! Especially if you’re willing to turn a blind eye to multiple users, (ie 2 or 3 people clubbing together to buy your products, depending on their actual price), to use in "their" domain. This would make sense as in my experience, musical collectives consist of a few individuals, producing individually, using compatible tools with a view to performing/producing together as an insular, almost masonic type of collaboration. After all, unless you’re planning to use unique IDs for your serials, surely there’s nothing to stop those people passing your product and serial around their collective anyway!

The biggest problem i’ve notcied with trial software, followed by an authorisation of the same product is that finding "serials" is one of the easiest ways to crack software…sad but true! A quick search of the internet will generate usable serial numbers for literally hundreds of thousands of applications, there’s people out there who collect them for the sake of it, (usually not knowing what the application is or does), and then make them available to others for their own egos (and a scant amount of revenue from advertising).

I’m no expert, but i’d have thought that companies generate the most revenue from their products, (especially innovative ones), whilst they’re still considered to be the "secret weapons of the knowledgable few". The main reason for this is that software cracks tend to be driven by demand and if the only people who know about the product are those who actively seek new and innovative products, with the intention of buying and using them before the masses get there, (instead of those just searching out cracks for the next "big thing"), then as word goes round the revenues will flow without people abusing it to any great extent.

I say all this as neither a software or marketing expert, but merely a reformed software abuser (which is maybe why i’m so skin these days), so i hope it provides some insight into the mindset of people like myself whom i presume will be your target market. I’ll definitely have a look at your products and probably add them to my growing wish list…so you can probably expect an order from me around 2020 ;-)

John

PS: If you’ve created a workable copy protection yet, i for one would be interested in seeing it or just having some idea of how you did it, (i know there’ve been a few ideas mentioned recently), not because i want to crack your software but because i’m aiming to develop a crude copy protection for my final year degree project…just to eek those few extra marks out of it.


October 30, 2006 | 9:35 pm

Talking about copy protection – actually i like the idea of something
like a dongle (exept for the port it blocks…): install the software
on all your machines, be it the ot so fast laptop or your super fast
mac pro, whatever. You can use the software as soon as you plug in the
dongle. It is stupid though if you want to run an installation or some
other project wher you need several machines with the software runing
simultaneously.
With max you can get auth for two machines at least, with ableton live
you have to buy an extra license if you want to run it on your second
(or third) machine.
Until now, i’d worked on my laptop exclusively, but for some tasks it’s
just to weak. So buying a multicore based machine is getting more and
more attractive, my budget is saved by my fears of the troubles i’d get
with my licenses when getting a second machine…

Titus


Viewing 19 posts - 1 through 19 (of 19 total)