I didn't test FTM nor CataRT extensively on Max6.1, but recently spent a couple of days exploring CataRT 1.2.3 with the latest FTM version. What I tried did work (although I think I had a few crashes, but nothing I could reproduce).
Anyway, it's probably safe to try by yourself.
(I'm now trying MuBu, which seems closer to what I'm looking for, but is so poorly documented…)
There hasn't been an update of FTM since beta 24, and there has been a bit of whinging on their list about a 64-bit version, but no sign of it on the horizon. (Catart was just updated, but I haven't had a look at it yet.)
I've done a bunch of work on Max 6.1.x with FTM without any problems as well. And I'm with you Patrick, IRCAM should hire someone to do their documentation!
Catart works as well as far as I can tell, although I haven't yet tested the update.
I wouldn't use the sourceforge page for FTM tho. The last version there is 1.6.3 and the current version on the website is 2.6.0 Beta.
Documentation is indeed an issue with FTM. They do provide some basic information that would allow programmers who know what they are doing to use FTM to implement things in Max. This is far from the cozy Max docs that explain everything with apples and oranges for those of us without a computer science background. They are really nice guys tho and their email list is low traffic and they answer all questions with example patches.
I had started a tutorial a few years ago but have not had time to work on it. Attached is a small document that gives an the overview and some example patches that focus on the [ftm.mess] object. If you open it you might see how long ago I looked into this since the screenshots were done in Max 4.3. Still some of my students have found this info useful to get started. I also made a bunch of patches to document the functions available in the [ftm.mess] object which are now included in the help file for the object.
MuBu is also great and definitely worth looking into it. Again I would suggest subscribing to their email list for further information.
Concerns about the documentation (and pace and consistency of development) of Ircam projects aside, MUBU is conceptually very interesting and potentially awesome. FWIW The latest release- 1.75 has an example that pretty much replicates the essential functionality of CataRT with mubu components in a *much* simpler and easier to figure patch.
MuBu is great and it does replicate functionality from FTM in a more sound-specific way. It might be what they are focusing on now but as with a lot of Ircam software it is hard to tell. Having worked with FTM for a few years I see MuBu as a subset of the FTM objects that are easier to work with. This however means that some things are slightly different in terms of syntax now and then. I often find myself implementing things in FTM which I know better even though they are easier in MuBu but FTM is still more flexible.
Hi Miguel. I think you may have misread my post. I didn't explicitly compare MuBu to FTM (but yes, in using them it becomes clear that they are 'related'). Rather I was pointing out that MuBu was very interesting and that in the latest release it has an example 'catart-by-mubu' that "pretty much replicates the essential functionality of *CataRT*" (not FTM)
In any case, happy to be part of an ongoing discussion about these toolkits. I have a feeling they are generally under-appreciated in the wider Max community and if there is even a remote chance that raising awareness of them will make an iota of difference in terms of the support, development or further documentation(!!) they might receive, than I'm all for it.
ooooh yes... doc is already kinda sparse for ftm, but mubu..... so far it seems abit similar to ftm, so i don't completely get it. Is that an "extension" to ftm ? or a "rewriting" of ftm ? or an "easier" ftm ? or not ?..