max 5 new feature videos


    Oct 05 2007 | 11:10 pm
    amazing job, max 5 looks very nice and neat
    file browser window, i think it would be great if one could embed it in a bpatcher (most probably not possible)..this one because when using jitter opening a dialog window will stop movie playback and thats not good
    best
    michele

    • Oct 06 2007 | 12:20 am
      I agree! The features looked really incredible. However, I wasn't too into
      the way the objects looked in the gui itself. Just a bit too rounded and,
      er, "friendly". I'm curious to see how one could pull off the very 'tight'
      gui's that I've seen in a lot of good and free patches such as Forester.
      On 10/5/07, mic wrote:
      >
      >
      > amazing job, max 5 looks very nice and neat
      > file browser window, i think it would be great if one could embed it in a
      > bpatcher (most probably not possible)..this one because when using jitter
      > opening a dialog window will stop movie playback and thats not good
      > best
      > michele
      >
      >
    • Oct 06 2007 | 1:56 am
      These basic "show and tell" teasers are great! Presentation mode is
      just a wonderfully simple solution!! Well done! Excited to get my
      hands on it.
      !!!
      john
      On Oct 5, 2007, at 4:10 PM, mic wrote:
      >
      > amazing job, max 5 looks very nice and neat
      > file browser window, i think it would be great if one could embed
      > it in a bpatcher (most probably not possible)..this one because
      > when using jitter opening a dialog window will stop movie playback
      > and thats not good
      > best
      > michele
      >
    • Oct 06 2007 | 2:00 am
      At 5:20 PM -0700 10/5/07, Nic Zwart wrote:
      >I agree! The features looked really incredible. However, I wasn't too into the way the objects looked in the gui itself. Just a bit too rounded and, er, "friendly". I'm curious to see how one could pull off the very 'tight' gui's that I've seen in a lot of good and free patches such as Forester.
      Well, several of the UI objects have a checkbox in their inspector that enables "classic appearance", which uses the old bitmaps. These aren't as pretty when zoomed in, but they still work. Imported Max4 patches use the classic appearance, by default.
      In general things take a similar amount of screen real estate, although the new objects look better with a little breathing room around them.
      I think that you will be able to accomplish an equally crammed UI in Max 5, as you can do in Max 4, if you want to.
      Keep in mind that several types of object can be more freely resized now, that were a fixed size in Max 4 (e.g. keyslider).
      -C
      --
      Chris Muir | "There are many futures and only one status quo.
      cbm@well.com | This is why conservatives mostly agree,
      http://www.xfade.com | and radicals always argue." - Brian Eno
    • Oct 06 2007 | 2:32 am
    • Oct 06 2007 | 3:17 am
      Though I think that Max 5 will definitely allow for more polished
      interfaces, I second the concerns with readability. The audio patch
      cords in the demo patch are hard to read (for me). If anything is hard
      to read when at the computer, it's doubly problematic to students when
      seen on a projector.
      I'd be very much in favor of keeping non-ui objects square and doing
      the round thing with the ui objects, though this is probably off the
      table...
      Peter McCulloch
    • Oct 06 2007 | 3:34 am
      kind of looks a little like jMax too, I think, but I'm very excited,
      still. Just an observation. The drag and drop options look amazing.
      Can't wait.
      Keith
      On 10/5/07, Peter McCulloch wrote:
      > Though I think that Max 5 will definitely allow for more polished
      > interfaces, I second the concerns with readability. The audio patch
      > cords in the demo patch are hard to read (for me). If anything is hard
      > to read when at the computer, it's doubly problematic to students when
      > seen on a projector.
      >
      > I'd be very much in favor of keeping non-ui objects square and doing
      > the round thing with the ui objects, though this is probably off the
      > table...
      >
      > Peter McCulloch
      >
      >
      >
      --
      Keith Manlove
      (512) 825-9176
      keithmanlove@gmail.com
    • Oct 06 2007 | 3:37 am
      I love the new rounded look. when I watched the videos earlier today I knew that a lot of people would not be in love with new look because it is very rounded, friendly and playful. but i couldn't be happier. there has not been a software update that i have looked forward to more.
    • Oct 06 2007 | 5:15 am
      At 11:17 PM -0400 10/5/07, Peter McCulloch wrote:
      >Though I think that Max 5 will definitely allow for more polished interfaces, I second the concerns with readability. The audio patch cords in the demo patch are hard to read (for me). If anything is hard to read when at the computer, it's doubly problematic to students when seen on a projector.
      My experience is that after an hour or three of "OMG, it's different!", Max 5 seemed pretty natural. Now when I go back to Max 4, it seems relatively crude. If you're a Mac user, visually, it's sort of like the transition from OS9 to OS X.
      FWIW, I don't find the audio patchcords harder to use, particularly, than the bumblebee patchcords in Max 4. In fact, I find both styles of patchcords easier on the eyes in Max 5, because they're anti-aliased.
      Also, for projector use, remember that you can zoom in Max 5.
      -C
      --
      Chris Muir | "There are many futures and only one status quo.
      cbm@well.com | This is why conservatives mostly agree,
      http://www.xfade.com | and radicals always argue." - Brian Eno
    • Oct 06 2007 | 7:49 am
      I almost cried. It's so so ugly i could kill myself. Do C74 is really
      allowed to bring that roundish outfit to our software ? Is there, at
      least an option to get rid of this ? Our patches will look like a bunch
      of scattered pills or suppositories...
      f.e chanfrault | aka | personal computer music
      >>>>>>> http://www.personal-computer-music.com
      >>>>>>> |sublime music for a desperate people|
    • Oct 06 2007 | 8:08 am
      On 6 oct. 07, at 05:34, keith manlove wrote:
      > kind of looks a little like jMax too, I think
      I agree... ;-)
    • Oct 06 2007 | 9:21 am
      Well, while it is great to see that one can , hopefully, have a multislider displaying values properly, I feel like arriving in aquaworld when I look at the new gui. It simply doesnt look like programming, damm its uninspiring. I dont know how much of the gui can one adjust, but from the comparison of old style ring modulator vs. the new look interface on the presentation, this is what i dont like:
      -audio cables are not sometimes readable ner the objects corners,
      -round objects look very silly, the old ones really worked
      -popup messages are gonna be hiding neighboring objects and should be replaced by a proper info bar at the bottom of the screen. the info bar in max 4 was someties useless, since it was limited to certain amount of characters
      Also, I am ot sure why one needs to zoom in and out. i mean, encapsulate, name patcher accordingly and of to the next one,.. one screen, one thought! And thats the reason for the look of the objects. It is to allow for quicker redraws...one step forward, to steps back i think
      Other than that, I consider the changes as improvements, i mean the drag and drop, playbar, the databasing.
    • Oct 06 2007 | 9:42 am
      The padded edges.. just in case we might get hurt.
      What is this, Max the mental asylum?
    • Oct 06 2007 | 10:51 am
      I believe this presentation mode and the file browser are the real kick in.
      From what I understand it will be much simpler to organize a working flow, to collect without "collecting" hehehe.
      Indeed I will miss the squarey
    • Oct 06 2007 | 11:34 am
      Square corners, much more easier to the eye, if you hate old style max, look at plogue bidule! These round corners in v5 are just gimmicks which please you in the beginning and after a while you become really tired of it.
      Curves are attractive, but if they show off too much , they are also very dumm and not for more than one week.
    • Oct 06 2007 | 11:46 am
      i agree with itchy
      maybe we can suggest to add an old style look feature?
      On Oct 6, 2007, at 1:34 PM, itchy wrote:
      >
      > Square corners, much more easier to the eye, if you hate old style
      > max, look at plogue bidule! These round corners in v5 are just
      > gimmicks which please you in the beginning and after a while you
      > become really tired of it.
      >
      > Curves are attractive, but if they show off too much , they are
      > also very dumm and not for more than one week.
      >
      >
      >
    • Oct 06 2007 | 11:50 am
      Quote: Jabbo wrote on Sat, 06 October 2007 12:51
      ----------------------------------------------------
      > I believe this presentation mode and the file browser are the real kick in.
      > From what I understand it will be much simpler to organize a working flow, to collect without "collecting" hehehe.
      >
      > Indeed I will miss the squarey
    • Oct 06 2007 | 12:02 pm
      I would welcome this option of old look (or at least something very close), and it is essentialy what iam trying to say here.
    • Oct 06 2007 | 12:20 pm
      i think the new look is very 'slick', and hopefully doesnt have a
      graphic performance tradeoff(in the demo vids, i think the objects
      'float' to their new position in presentation mode, the objects appear
      sluggish while doing this, although it could just be the video
      capture/compression)
      from people have said you can select a 'classic' view for each object,
      im assuming they will couple that with a 'global classic' view option
      in preferences(ala windows xp/vista vs classic view)
      like others mentioned im mainly concerned with the performance side of
      it, especially with them saying its going to be coded to be
      platformless, with then the platform specific stuff added later
      i hope that doesnt compromise performance
      if it does, even if by a little, thatd be a huge shame, as im sure it
      must be horrible to keep coding platform specific changes every
      update, but thats what the software business is about
      one thing i was really hoping for in the update to max5 is more
      'prebuilt' type objects, like built in effect objects, although
      externals do this, it would be nice to have an 'intermediate' step for
      people coming from a plugin/reaktoresque background
      so until ive read all the research on how to make a reverb, and decide
      to tackle it on my own, i can use the builtin reverb~ object etc...
      rodrigo
      On 10/6/07, itchy wrote:
      >
      > I would welcome this option of old look (or at least something very close), and it is essentialy what iam trying to say here.
      >
    • Oct 06 2007 | 3:31 pm
      Change = life, max is living, let it grow. Will probably
      inspire us all to think about new ideas for patches.
      Doesn't seem to be dumbed down to me, maybe perhaps
      adapting to its competitors more (kind of like the animal
      kingdom).
      -chuck
      Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - their life, your story. Play Sims Stories at Yahoo! Games.
    • Oct 06 2007 | 3:51 pm
      I think it looks great, a little to pony, but i don't mind much.... I absolutely love the presentation view, and i'm guessing that there will be more graphic options in the inspectors,- letting us abandon the curved edges (at least i hope so)....
      The filebrowser is brilliant and intelligent !! A feature I have been crying for in a long time !!
      I don't think it is harder to read in any way, we just have to get use to it, and the objects in the background can be shown in classic view anyway, if that is our wish...
      I like the new look of the ui objects,- and being able the resize everything is fantastic !
      I cannot wait to see more gui objects,- waveform, filtergraph, etc.
      We should also remember that this is a new start ! I think it looks like a great platform for further development !
      Great work cycling !
    • Oct 06 2007 | 4:18 pm
      The old style look can be selected for all objects? not just gui objects?
      yes, it seemed rather slugish the response of switching between modes. the mouse moves rather more smoothly on the videos. it ought to be slugish, if you have a lot of objects, i dont think it matters much since you cdont need to switch between modes during performance,
    • Oct 06 2007 | 4:24 pm
      YES YES YES!!!!!!
      I can remember posting a while back asking for a nice pretty new UI and getting all negative response. I still don't know why people would prefer ugly ass 1980 graphics to gorgeous new looking IPHONE/LIVE/OSX prettiness. I patch for days on end sometimes and shit man it hurts my eyes to look at all that hard edged aliased crap. This rounded and smooth patch cables MMmmmmmmMMMMM!
      Im happy, so happy
      Whats up with externals though, is everything going to have to be updated again!? It just took 2 years to get all the universal updates and now what, do we have to wait another couple years?!
      I hope they make some sound quality improvements on the filters, I was never a fan of the built in filter algorithms.
    • Oct 06 2007 | 4:44 pm
      At 9:00 AM -0700 10/6/07, David Morneau wrote:
      >also, typing "n" to insert a new object at the cursor will be very useful...
      This is all subject to change, but -
      Single key shortcuts:
      b bang button
      c comment
      f floating point number box
      i integer number box
      m new message box
      n new object
      p pop up new object palette
      r pop up new object palette with recent tab selected
      t toggle box
      New object boxes have auto-complete for typing names.
      The new object palette allows for tabbing between object category tabs, using arrow keys to select objects, typing the name to select objects.
      -C
      --
      Chris Muir | "There are many futures and only one status quo.
      cbm@well.com | This is why conservatives mostly agree,
      http://www.xfade.com | and radicals always argue." - Brian Eno
    • Oct 06 2007 | 4:48 pm
    • Oct 06 2007 | 4:54 pm
      i think that that's the last thing the program needs, actually.
      there are legions of people posting collections of patches and
      shortcuts and externals. i'd rather see cycling in the business of
      providing frameworks, instead of fully made solutions.
      On Oct 6, 2007, at 8:20 AM, Rodrigo Constanzo wrote:
      > one thing i was really hoping for in the update to max5 is more
      > 'prebuilt' type objects, like built in effect objects, although
      > externals do this, it would be nice to have an 'intermediate' step for
      > people coming from a plugin/reaktoresque background
    • Oct 06 2007 | 5:02 pm
      Quote: joshua goldberg wrote on Sat, 06 October 2007 12:54
      ----------------------------------------------------
      > i think that that's the last thing the program needs, actually.
      > there are legions of people posting collections of patches and
      > shortcuts and externals. i'd rather see cycling in the business of
      > providing frameworks, instead of fully made solutions.
      I agree !!
    • Oct 06 2007 | 5:20 pm
      At 10:18 AM -0600 10/6/07, itchy wrote:
      >The old style look can be selected for all objects? not just gui objects?
      Selected GUI objects only.
      >yes, it seemed rather slugish the response of switching between modes. the mouse moves rather more smoothly on the videos. it ought to be slugish, if you have a lot of objects, i dont think it matters much since you cdont need to switch between modes during performance,
      Speed-wise, switching in and out of presentation mode in Max 5 doesn't feel much different than switching in and out of editing mode in Max 4.
      -C
      --
      Chris Muir | "There are many futures and only one status quo.
      cbm@well.com | This is why conservatives mostly agree,
      http://www.xfade.com | and radicals always argue." - Brian Eno
    • Oct 06 2007 | 5:36 pm
      On 10/6/07, Nicholas C. Raftis III wrote:
      > YES YES YES!!!!!!
      > I can remember posting a while back asking for a nice pretty new UI and getting all negative response. I still don't know why people would prefer ugly ass 1980 graphics to gorgeous new looking IPHONE/LIVE/OSX prettiness. I patch for days on end sometimes and shit man it hurts my eyes to look at all that hard edged aliased crap. This rounded and smooth patch cables MMmmmmmmMMMMM!
      Word...
      > Im happy, so happy
      That at least makes two of us... I think Cycling should know. It's a
      bold, NECESSARY move.
      > Whats up with externals though, is everything going to have to be updated again!? It just took 2 years to get all the universal updates and now what, do we have to wait another couple years?!
      Maybe since the UB thing was such a rush, this time it will different;
      release sdk early or something.
      > I hope they make some sound quality improvements on the filters, I was never a fan of the built in filter algorithms.
      Not to get into this argument again, but I am wondering what kind of
      MSP improvements will be going down.
      --
      Keith
    • Oct 06 2007 | 5:41 pm
      Hear hear. ++ etc etc. I fully agree.
      On Oct 6, 2007, at 12:54 PM, joshua goldberg wrote:
      > i think that that's the last thing the program needs, actually.
      > there are legions of people posting collections of patches and
      > shortcuts and externals. i'd rather see cycling in the business of
      > providing frameworks, instead of fully made solutions.
      >
      > On Oct 6, 2007, at 8:20 AM, Rodrigo Constanzo wrote:
      >
      >> one thing i was really hoping for in the update to max5 is more
      >> 'prebuilt' type objects, like built in effect objects, although
      >> externals do this, it would be nice to have an 'intermediate' step
      >> for
      >> people coming from a plugin/reaktoresque background
      >
      v a d e //
      www.vade.info
      abstrakt.vade.info
    • Oct 06 2007 | 6:29 pm
      i didnt mean that max5 should be a reaktor type thing, but having more
      objects/examples of real world applications built in would help with the
      steep learning curve
      even if only as a buffer before you can start building your own versions of
      them, but something like reverb, i have no interest in learning how to build
      a good sounding reverb, if its only one small aspect of a patch(which has
      nothing to do with spacial design)
      as david mentioned in his what it is and isnt post, there arent going to be
      many new objects, so what i hoped for isnt happening
      he does mention better help files/examples, so perhaps that will be
      'solution' im(and im sure many other newbies) are looking for
      i think what makes max attractive is the object oriented nature of the
      program, things are encapsulated, and done for you already, so it makes it
      easier to build an end result without having to code, or do needless
      building
      sure there are tons of externals/abstractions, but those can come with their
      own set of problems(and sometimes pricetag)
      from the look/support overhaul of the program, it looks like c74 is trying
      to make the program easier to learn and use, having more non-base level
      objects would be a step in that direction
      just my newbie 2cents
      On 10/6/07, vade wrote:
      >
      > Hear hear. ++ etc etc. I fully agree.
      > On Oct 6, 2007, at 12:54 PM, joshua goldberg wrote:
      >
      > i think that that's the last thing the program needs, actually. there are
      > legions of people posting collections of patches and shortcuts and
      > externals. i'd rather see cycling in the business of providing
      > frameworks, instead of fully made solutions.
      >
      > On Oct 6, 2007, at 8:20 AM, Rodrigo Constanzo wrote:
      >
      > one thing i was really hoping for in the update to max5 is more
      > 'prebuilt' type objects, like built in effect objects, although
      > externals do this, it would be nice to have an 'intermediate' step for
      > people coming from a plugin/reaktoresque background
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > *v a d e //*
      >
      > *www.vade.info*
      > *abstrakt.vade.info*
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
    • Oct 06 2007 | 6:45 pm
      ask yourself this:
      if this was really max's virtue, how would it stack up against
      reaktor? or jitter against isidora?
      not well. because those programs are specifically designed to do
      what you are asking for. max is something more.
      On Oct 6, 2007, at 2:29 PM, Rodrigo Constanzo wrote:
      > i think what makes max attractive is the object oriented nature of
      > the program, things are encapsulated, and done for you already, so
      > it makes it easier to build an end result without having to code,
      > or do needless building
    • Oct 06 2007 | 7:02 pm
      I don't agree.
      Pre-built very good quality effects such as reverbs, Eqs, compressors,
      delays, and ordinary things like that could be a good way to learn faster
      Max Msp.
      Access to Max would be possible even to people who don't know anything
      about dsp programming.
      Moreover, as someone else has already said, Max Msp filters objects are not
      very good, and some externals made by other people are better than those
      included with max.
      Many people don't use Max because they don't know nothing about all these
      free third party externals made by people who really use max to work on
      their music.
      -------
      In conclusion, although I like the new UI (the Presentation Mode is really a
      great thing), I would like to see Cycling74 working more on improving and
      enhancing their externals and GUI objects (like putting reference grids and
      numbers on the Filtergraph, with an active cursor also; spline curves for
      the envelope editor, etc..), making Max Msp a more versatile and powerful
      tool, instead of concentrating on making the UI prettier.
      Best,
      Carlo Laurenzi
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "joshua goldberg"
      To:
      Sent: Saturday, October 06, 2007 6:54 PM
      Subject: Re: [maxmsp] Re: Re: max 5 new feature videos
      >i think that that's the last thing the program needs, actually. there are
      >legions of people posting collections of patches and shortcuts and
      >externals. i'd rather see cycling in the business of providing
      >frameworks, instead of fully made solutions.
      >
      > On Oct 6, 2007, at 8:20 AM, Rodrigo Constanzo wrote:
      >
      >> one thing i was really hoping for in the update to max5 is more
      >> 'prebuilt' type objects, like built in effect objects, although
      >> externals do this, it would be nice to have an 'intermediate' step for
      >> people coming from a plugin/reaktoresque background
      >
    • Oct 06 2007 | 7:05 pm
      I completely Agree!
      Carlo Laurenzi
      I'd like to see more varieties of filters, a vector delay unit for building things like spectral delays, as well as a few more options for delay-line interpolation. A really nice convolution reverb in Max would also be nice, but this might be a bit much...
      I think that there are some things like multi-band compressor/limiters that are complex enough to be beyond the range of a lot of people's expertise (or even simply interests). Furthermore, it's nice to have things like gizmo~ and the omx library included in the distribution as it means that the object is supported by Cycling '74, and that it will most likely be compatible with future versions and will be documented in a standardized, centralized way. This is no knock against third-party developers, who have really made a lot of exceptionally cool objects, but just a reflection of how the system is. Objects like fiddle~, pitch~, bonk~, etc. are incredibly useful, and it would be very nice to have more of them included with Max.
      One thing that I would really love to see is a solution to the old phasor~ and sah~ loop problem. (changing the speed of phasor once per cycle with sample accuracy) I know there are externals that do this, but it'd be nice to have one that's in the standard distribution.
      my two cents.
      Peter McCulloch
    • Oct 06 2007 | 7:22 pm
      its the opposite, i dont want a glorified effect box, for that id just
      use plugs/reaktor
      but i dont want to get into a hugely complex thing, like making a nice
      reverb, when thats only an aspect of a patch(that has nothing to do
      with normal 'effect processing)
      i think the question is how does maxmsp compare to csound, or
      supercollider, or c++ or whatever, max is built around having objects
      to do specific things for you, without needing to code
      if people didnt want the prebuilt objects to handle tasks that they
      would otherwise have to program themselves, maxmsp wouldnt exsist
      granted, if i was a seasoned maxmsp veteran, id want more features
      that appealed to that, but im not, im still learning, so id look for
      features that appealed to me
      and given teh amount of examples of those type of objects/externals
      out there, its not like c74 would waste tons of man hours on this,
      On 10/6/07, joshua goldberg wrote:
      > ask yourself this:
      >
      > if this was really max's virtue, how would it stack up against
      > reaktor? or jitter against isidora?
      >
      > not well. because those programs are specifically designed to do
      > what you are asking for. max is something more.
      >
      > On Oct 6, 2007, at 2:29 PM, Rodrigo Constanzo wrote:
      >
      > > i think what makes max attractive is the object oriented nature of
      > > the program, things are encapsulated, and done for you already, so
      > > it makes it easier to build an end result without having to code,
      > > or do needless building
      >
      >
    • Oct 06 2007 | 7:23 pm
      At 7:29 PM +0100 10/6/07, Rodrigo Constanzo wrote:
      >i didnt mean that max5 should be a reaktor type thing, but having more objects/examples of real world applications built in would help with the steep learning curve
      Well, my opinion is that for most of the very complex stuff like reverb, the use VST~ with an appropriate plugin is a pretty good solution..
      Different programming languages are at different points on the atomic scale, low level high level. Low level languages make you roll your own everything (e.g. the original C language.) High level languages have more complete support for a particular worldview (e.g. Smalltalk.) One is not necessarily better than the other; each language will have benefits for some tasks, and drawbacks for some tasks.
      Low level languages allow you to do anything, but you have to do everything yourself.
      Higher level languages may allow you to code things faster, as long as the language supports what you're trying to do.
      I would put Max somewhere in the middle of this continuum, with the ability to go lower and higher (writing externals in C, or using VSTs, respectively.)
      -C
      --
      Chris Muir | "There are many futures and only one status quo.
      cbm@well.com | This is why conservatives mostly agree,
      http://www.xfade.com | and radicals always argue." - Brian Eno
    • Oct 06 2007 | 7:43 pm
      At 10:24 AM -0600 10/6/07, Nicholas C. Raftis III wrote:
      >Whats up with externals though, is everything going to have to be updated again!? It just took 2 years to get all the universal updates and now what, do we have to wait another couple years?!
      Non-GUI externals should just work as they worked in Max 4.
      -C
      --
      Chris Muir | "There are many futures and only one status quo.
      cbm@well.com | This is why conservatives mostly agree,
      http://www.xfade.com | and radicals always argue." - Brian Eno
    • Oct 06 2007 | 9:55 pm
      I like the new look.
      The main difference is that soon, my patches won't look as scary as
      they do now. Old school, rectangular boxes and messy patchcords always
      frighten non-max people. I think most of the users will get used to it
      very quickly. OS9 to OSX is good comparison. It took me ages to
      switch, but after I did it I didn't look back.
      I must say that new hint/help pop-up windows look to messy to me,
      mainly because they appear at different place on the screen every
      time. I'd like to have a possibility to switch to something more
      conservative, like pop-ups always at the bottom/top.
      I hope scheduler/timing issues will get solved or at least improved.
      Klif
    • Oct 06 2007 | 11:11 pm
      There was a thread about this recently on the [dev] list. Max 4.6 and
      Max 5 externals are binary compatible, although there are some API
      changes. Most externs will work fine, although some (and all UI
      objects) will need to be rewritten for the changes to the underlying
      API. I'm going to ballpark that 85-90% of existing 4.6.x objects will
      continue to work without any changes whatsoever.
      jb
      Am 06.10.2007 um 19:36 schrieb keith manlove:
      > Maybe since the UB thing was such a rush, this time it will different;
      > release sdk early or something.
    • Oct 07 2007 | 12:06 am
    • Oct 07 2007 | 12:41 am
      So, I went to AES today and played very quickly with Max 5. I am not
      an audio guy (more jitter nerd), but here are my initial thoughts,
      and perhaps some "facts" from cycling who were kind enough to answer
      some questions I posed. Im sure this is subject to change and is no
      way official, and was just about 30 minutes of Q/A with Cycling.
      The UI is really really really nice in person (I was a bit skeptical
      myself), and Cycling has paid quite a bit of attention to detail, and
      it shows. Every aspect is tweaked, seems easy to use and is well
      thought out. I very much appreciate the changes. It does strike me as
      much more approachable.
      I asked about poly~ and its multithreading support, which *only*
      applies to MSP~ audio objects. It does not run anything else in other
      threads. So no, Jitter users, this is not an easy multithreading
      workaround (yeah I thought there was hope).
      BPatcher - issues with nested bpatchers and re-drawing glitches
      ought to be gone. Bpatchers can apparently also have an alpha with
      background color and be tinted, so that they can be overlayed over
      other objects and tint background layers and their UI objects. This
      sounds useful for UI cues based on color, etc.
      Inspectors are totally updated and look quite nice.
      The new browser looks quite nice, and I asked that It be an option to
      embed in a patcher as an object. Apparently it is built in Max itself
      (im not sure if that is correct however), and uses an SQLLite backend
      for storing filepaths / objects it finds in the paths you set, so you
      can apparently query this DB yourself.
      it seemed quite nice and useful.
      Now, the sad news seems to be:
      The UI requires more horsepower due to the new compositing engine.
      Regular objects that used to be skinnable with bitmaps, at least, at
      this time are not customizable.
      The scheduler remains the same, and no tweaks have been made to the
      core engine. This seems like a UI/Facelift, but the internals are the
      same.
      This is nice for backwards compatibilty and ease of updating, but,
      for some reason, it feels like bad news to me.
      Anyway, Considering how huge of an update this is, I plan on
      reserving any opinion on the shipped Max 5, but I thought some people
      would be interested in this.
      Thanks,
    • Oct 07 2007 | 1:12 am
      random question, is max 5 going to do away with the 1000 dollar license fee to sell an applet on windows?
    • Oct 07 2007 | 1:48 am
      yet another reason to ditch windows.... :P
      On Oct 6, 2007, at 9:12 PM, Nicholas C. Raftis III wrote:
      >
      > random question, is max 5 going to do away with the 1000 dollar
      > license fee to sell an applet?
      > --
      > -=ili!ili=- www.Axiom-Crux.net -=ili!ili=-
      >
    • Oct 07 2007 | 2:43 am
      Quote: vade wrote on Sat, 06 October 2007 17:41
      ----------------------------------------------------
      >
      > The UI is really really really nice in person (I was a bit skeptical
      > myself), and Cycling has paid quite a bit of attention to detail, and
      > it shows. Every aspect is tweaked, seems easy to use and is well
      > thought out. I very much appreciate the changes. It does strike me as
      > much more approachable.
      I've also seen it in action and think it's a great improvement. I sort of understand the complaints some people have made about ditching the older look, but I really think this is a necessary step for C74 to stay competitive. Looks *do* matter. But more importantly, the new graphics engine will provide new features and fix existing bugs, such as:
      > BPatcher - issues with nested bpatchers and re-drawing glitches
      > ought to be gone. Bpatchers can apparently also have an alpha with
      > background color and be tinted, so that they can be overlayed over
      > other objects and tint background layers and their UI objects. This
      > sounds useful for UI cues based on color, etc.
      This is great new for me! I have a few projects I started that involved scriptable GUIs in bpatchers and I put them on hold because of redrawing glitches. I can't wait to follow through on these ideas once things actually work properly.
      As for the true transparency support, I really think this will make it possible to do some amazing GUIs in Max. It may be the feature I am most excited about. In the demo I saw, a semi-transparent object was put in front of another object and setup such that mouse clicks passed through the semi-transparent object to the one beneath. Very cool!
      > The UI requires more horsepower due to the new compositing engine.
      An unfortunate but necessary and expected trade off. I will gladly take a performance hit for transparency support, zooming, and the nicer graphics as long as it is a reasonably small hit. I also wonder since performance mode will typically display only a few objects if it may somewhat compensate for the performance hit? I guess well-designed Max 4 GUIs hide any unnecessary objects, but Max 5 may help avoid drawing unnecessary objects when patching on-the-fly.
      -Adam
    • Oct 07 2007 | 2:56 am
      At 8:41 PM -0400 10/6/07, vade wrote:
      >The UI requires more horsepower due to the new compositing engine.
      The ship hasn't sailed on this one. There are still optimizations still being done. I've seen dramatic improvements in the last few builds.
      >The scheduler remains the same, and no tweaks have been made to the core engine. This seems like a UI/Facelift, but the internals are the same.
      I've been characterizing this release by using a Devo album title: "Duty Now for the Future." IMO, this release is all about creating a new stable platform for future development. As I understand it, keeping the old code base up to date with OS and hardware changes was so time consuming that there wasn't much development time left over to do fundamental engine/architecture changes. The new Max5 platform should be flexible enough to allow for more time spent doing fun development, and less time being spent doing mandatory development.
      -C
      --
      Chris Muir | "There are many futures and only one status quo.
      cbm@well.com | This is why conservatives mostly agree,
      http://www.xfade.com | and radicals always argue." - Brian Eno
    • Oct 07 2007 | 2:59 am
      At 7:12 PM -0600 10/6/07, Nicholas C. Raftis III wrote:
      >random question, is max 5 going to do away with the 1000 dollar license fee to sell an applet?
      IIRC, this was a Windows-only fee imposed by the old cross-platform solution that was being used. If that is correct, then I imagine that this fee would go away, but I have no knowledge of this one way or another.
      -C
      --
      Chris Muir | "There are many futures and only one status quo.
      cbm@well.com | This is why conservatives mostly agree,
      http://www.xfade.com | and radicals always argue." - Brian Eno
    • Oct 07 2007 | 3:29 am
      Yes - the $1000 fee for windows apps will be gone.
      -A
    • Oct 07 2007 | 8:47 am
      On 7 Oct 2007, at 01:41, vade wrote:
      > Regular objects that used to be skinnable with bitmaps, at least,
      > at this time are not customizable.
      Aw ... Death of the Image Burger?
      -- N.
      nick rothwell -- composition, systems, performance -- http://
      www.cassiel.com
    • Oct 07 2007 | 9:51 am
      > Now, the sad news seems to be:
      >
      > The UI requires more horsepower due to the new compositing engine.
      >
      > Regular objects that used to be skinnable with bitmaps, at least, at
      > this time are not customizable.
      >
      > The scheduler remains the same, and no tweaks have been made to the
      > core engine. This seems like a UI/Facelift, but the internals are the
      > same.
      >
      > This is nice for backwards compatibilty and ease of updating, but,
      > for some reason, it feels like bad news to me.
      >
      > Anyway, Considering how huge of an update this is, I plan on
      > reserving any opinion on the shipped Max 5, but I thought some people
      > would be interested in this.
      >
      > Thanks,
      >
      these are bad bad news to me,i was hoping behind pretty face there was some core tweaks :(
    • Oct 07 2007 | 11:49 am
      Am 07.10.2007 um 04:56 schrieb Chris Muir:
      >> The UI requires more horsepower due to the new compositing engine.
      >
      > The ship hasn't sailed on this one. There are still optimizations
      > still being done. I've seen dramatic improvements in the last few
      > builds.
      This was the only thing worrying me when I saw the nice new features
      videos. Glad to hear this is being worked on - please please with sugar
      on top make Max 5 a pleasant enviroment even on lower end machines.
      Maybe add an option to disable FSAA? :p
      g, g.
    • Oct 07 2007 | 5:00 pm
      On Oct 7, 2007, at 2:51 AM, mic wrote:
      > these are bad bad news to me,i was hoping behind pretty face there
      > was some core tweaks :(
      I suppose it all depends on what one considers to be "Core". Here's a
      few of the features I personally feel to be "Core" (and even when
      they relate to UI, are much more than a "facelift", as they require
      significant infrastructural change):
      - multiple undo
      - drag + drop
      - unicode text support
      - long filename support
      - JSON human readable/editable patcher format
      - configurable keyboard shortcuts
      - integrated, in application, searchable object reference
      - in application SQLite DB (yes, you can create and manage your own
      databases)
      - robust html rendering engine in patchers (with patcher interaction
      via html JS)
      - object sensitive error reporting in max window (with reveal object
      in patcher)
      - improved debugging window + infrastructure (with message stack
      view, reveal object in patcher, "watchpoints" with message history)
      For externals developers:
      - improvements to the object infrastructure to make things like
      attribute exposure, defaults, JSON file saving, inspectors,
      generation of object reference templates, etc. happen "automatically"
      - XML + JSON file import/export
      - crossplatform, antialiased, compositing 2D vector graphics API
      (also accessible via JS)
      It is also important to note that much of these "Core" improvements
      pave the way for additional features + improvements in the future. As
      has been mentioned several times, this is very similar to Apple's
      change from OS 9 to OS X or Microsoft's changes from Windows 95 to XP/
      Vista, and with it, we realize that there will be parts of this
      transition that are not universally popular (as was the case with
      Apple + Microsoft's changes at the time). C'est la vie.
      In the meanwhile, there's still lots of work for us to do to make
      this release as good as possible...stay tuned.
      -Joshua
    • Oct 07 2007 | 6:11 pm
      Thats very true. I suppose for some reason in my head I segregated
      the UI from the engine. Thinking about it I guess my only gripe was
      the UI in the "main thread" issue plus the statement the UI requires
      a bit more CPU usage to run. But I really should reserve any
      judgement for the final release. Sorry for seemingly being a downer,
      was not my intention, because I actually am quite excited about the
      UI stuff, as quality of life is quite important.
      I also appreciate the fact that the codebase is more modern and
      easier to use, which will let Cycling be more agile, which is
      something everyone gains from.
      Thanks for the insight.
      On Oct 7, 2007, at 1:00 PM, Joshua Kit Clayton wrote:
      > I suppose it all depends on what one considers to be "Core". Here's
      > a few of the features I personally feel to be "Core" (and even when
      > they relate to UI, are much more than a "facelift", as they require
      > significant infrastructural change):
      v a d e //
      www.vade.info
      abstrakt.vade.info
    • Oct 07 2007 | 7:17 pm
      Then again, rumors have it that Damian Hirst is looking into Max now...
      ;-)
      Trond
      f.e wrote:
      > I almost cried. It's so so ugly i could kill myself. Do C74 is really
      > allowed to bring that roundish outfit to our software ? Is there, at
      > least an option to get rid of this ? Our patches will look like a bunch
      > of scattered pills or suppositories...
    • Oct 07 2007 | 7:20 pm
      Quote: jkc wrote on Sun, 07 October 2007 10:00
      ----------------------------------------------------
      >
      > - in application SQLite DB (yes, you can create and manage your own
      > databases)
      Cool! I had only heard of the SQLite DB in the context of the new file browser widget. It will be great to use it for arbitrary data too. Coll gets the job done most of the time, but it is a pretty limited data structure.
      > - robust html rendering engine in patchers (with patcher interaction
      > via html JS)
      ...
      > - XML + JSON file import/export
      > - crossplatform, antialiased, compositing 2D vector graphics API
      > (also accessible via JS)
      So will you be supporting SVG (as in the standard W3C XML language)? That would be very nice, especially since it sounds completely scriptable.
      Anyway, lots of really great changes under the hood. Really exciting stuff IMO. Sounds like almost everyone should be able to find something to be happy about even if there are a few disappointments (which is unavoidable in any software release IMO).
      But damn, this is still half a year away? Ok, gotta stop thinking about it ;)
      -Adam
    • Oct 07 2007 | 9:29 pm
      On Oct 7, 2007, at 12:20 PM, Adam Murray wrote:
      >
      > So will you be supporting SVG (as in the standard W3C XML
      > language)? That would be very nice, especially since it sounds
      > completely scriptable.
      Some SVG support will be present, though I'm not certain if it
      supports the complete SVG standard. For example, fpic allows the use
      of SVG files, and we may expose the use of SVG from JS/C.
      -Joshua
    • Oct 07 2007 | 9:55 pm
      that sucks, because now my $10,000,000 diamond studded jitter patch
      is going to be worth a lot less. damn you to hell, established art
      world!
      On Oct 7, 2007, at 3:17 PM, Trond Lossius wrote:
      > Then again, rumors have it that Damian Hirst is looking into Max
      > now...
      >
      > ;-)
      >
      > Trond
      >
      >
      > f.e wrote:
      >> I almost cried. It's so so ugly i could kill myself. Do C74 is
      >> really allowed to bring that roundish outfit to our software ? Is
      >> there, at least an option to get rid of this ? Our patches will
      >> look like a bunch of scattered pills or suppositories...
      >
      >
    • Oct 07 2007 | 10:38 pm
      On Oct 7, 2007, at 1:48 AM, Nick Rothwell wrote:
      >> Regular objects that used to be skinnable with bitmaps, at least,
      >> at this time are not customizable.
      >
      > Aw ... Death of the Image Burger?
      Or is this about objects like [matrixctrl], [pictctrl] and [pictslider]?
      When I watched the new feature videos, I did wonder what the zoomable
      interface would do with animation strips rendered at a specific
      resolution. Imageburgers are fun, and I use them sometimes in
      patches for my own use or that I share with friends, but custom
      graphics in the objects above are something I use all the time in
      just about everything... I have a hard time imagining Max without
      them. Are they coming back?
      I *love* the new interface, though. It's gorgeously modern while
      still looking like Max. And all the core improvements and the
      capabilities they give to Cycling for future development make the
      transition bumps entirely worth it.
      Vlad
      Vlad Spears
      Urbi et orbi
      http://www.daevlmakr.com
    • Oct 07 2007 | 11:18 pm
      On 10/7/07, Trond Lossius wrote:
      > Then again, rumors have it that Damian Hirst is looking into Max now...
      >
      > ;-)
      >
      > Trond
      I really hope that means there will be a "The Physical Impossibility
      of Death in the Mind of Someone Living II" that comes with a max
      controlled shark. Assuming there isn't already a project with max
      controlled shark.
      Keith
    • Oct 08 2007 | 12:00 am
      Quote: Andrew Pask wrote on Sun, 07 October 2007 16:29
      ----------------------------------------------------
      > Yes - the $1000 fee for windows apps will be gone.
      Argh. Now I have no excuse ;-)
    • Oct 08 2007 | 6:27 am
      ..yeah that's right..can't wait to try it ;)
    • Oct 09 2007 | 7:11 am
      Quote: vade wrote on Sun, 07 October 2007 02:41
      ----------------------------------------------------
      > I asked about poly~ and its multithreading support, which *only*
      > applies to MSP~ audio objects. It does not run anything else in other
      > threads. So no, Jitter users, this is not an easy multithreading
      > workaround (yeah I thought there was hope).
      >
      Noooooo!
      I really thought.. maybe this time... *sniff*
    • Oct 09 2007 | 7:28 am
      Jitter already has multithreading for many matrix operations.
      wes
      On 10/9/07, Mattijs Kneppers wrote:
      >
      > Quote: vade wrote on Sun, 07 October 2007 02:41
      > ----------------------------------------------------
      >
      > > I asked about poly~ and its multithreading support, which *only*
      > > applies to MSP~ audio objects. It does not run anything else in other
      > > threads. So no, Jitter users, this is not an easy multithreading
      > > workaround (yeah I thought there was hope).
      > >
      >
      > Noooooo!
      >
      > I really thought.. maybe this time... *sniff*
      >
      >
      > --
      > SmadSteck - http://www.smadsteck.nl
      > Hard- and software for interactive audiovisual sampling
      >
    • Oct 09 2007 | 9:05 am
      Quote: wesley.hoke@gmail.com wrote on Tue, 09 October 2007 09:28
      ----------------------------------------------------
      > Jitter already has multithreading for many matrix operations.
      >
      > wes
      That's right wes but, as you have seen, the stuff we do is mostly about flinging around lots of data. Since event handling, gui updates and jitter rendering are all in one thread, to improve our framerates we need a way to separate data management and user interfaces in different threads. The only way to do this currently is to open multiple instances of max and communicate via a network protocol, and it would be so nice not to have to do that.
      To put it very simple: right now, while I'm typing this, I have 4 2.66 GHz cores all running at 30% with a framerate of 20 out of 50. And the bottleneck is not on the graphics card.
      I know that it would be really difficult to create a system that separates event handling in different parts of patches into different threads. I just envisioned (wishful thinking, I know ;) that the upgrade to poly~ would be just that.
      Mattijs
    • Oct 09 2007 | 9:28 am
      Ah, ok. I was thinking you were refering to polyphony multithreading
      for jitter operations not messaging.
      wes
      On 10/9/07, Mattijs Kneppers wrote:
      >
      > Quote: wesley.hoke@gmail.com wrote on Tue, 09 October 2007 09:28
      > ----------------------------------------------------
      > > Jitter already has multithreading for many matrix operations.
      > >
      > > wes
      >
      > That's right wes but, as you have seen, the stuff we do is mostly about flinging around lots of data. Since event handling, gui updates and jitter rendering are all in one thread, to improve our framerates we need a way to separate data management and user interfaces in different threads. The only way to do this currently is to open multiple instances of max and communicate via a network protocol, and it would be so nice not to have to do that.
      >
      > To put it very simple: right now, while I'm typing this, I have 4 2.66 GHz cores all running at 30% with a framerate of 20 out of 50. And the bottleneck is not on the graphics card.
      >
      > I know that it would be really difficult to create a system that separates event handling in different parts of patches into different threads. I just envisioned (wishful thinking, I know ;) that the upgrade to poly~ would be just that.
      >
      > Mattijs
      > --
      > SmadSteck - http://www.smadsteck.nl
      > Hard- and software for interactive audiovisual sampling
      >
    • Oct 09 2007 | 11:48 am
      There are definitely lots of things to get excited about in the new release, and I can't wait to get my hands on it.
      I don't mind the new look on the whole, but I've got to chip in on the rounded corners thing. For me this is a real problem in terms of, for want of a better word, 'tiling':
      Maybe this is a matter of individual patching style, but I'm often lining up a whole bunch of objects in a row, column or grid - toggles, bangs, number boxes, faders, even messages. With the rounded corners this will look TERRIBLE.
      Just to be clear - I'm not objecting to the new look on general aesthetic grounds, just the round corners for this very specific reason. Does anyone else see this as a problem, or is it just me?
    • Oct 09 2007 | 12:18 pm
      Are you on Mac? If so, try this: select several files in a folder in
      the Finder and give them a color label (cmd + I). Now deselect the
      files and look at that: a stack of rounded corners. Doesn't look so
      bad, does it? It's a matter of personal taste, I suppose. If you
      really need a more unified look for a bank of controls, you can
      probably achieve it with other GUI objects.
      On Oct 9, 2007, at 7:48 AM, Joseph Hyde wrote:
      >
      > Maybe this is a matter of individual patching style, but I'm often
      > lining up a whole bunch of objects in a row, column or grid -
      > toggles, bangs, number boxes, faders, even messages. With the
      > rounded corners this will look TERRIBLE.
      >
      > Just to be clear - I'm not objecting to the new look on general
      > aesthetic grounds, just the round corners for this very specific
      > reason. Does anyone else see this as a problem, or is it just me?
    • Oct 09 2007 | 12:23 pm
      jb
      Am 09.10.2007 um 13:48 schrieb Joseph Hyde:
      > Maybe this is a matter of individual patching style, but I'm often
      > lining up a whole bunch of objects in a row, column or grid -
      > toggles, bangs, number boxes, faders, even messages. With the
      > rounded corners this will look TERRIBLE.
    • Oct 09 2007 | 12:27 pm
      Hi everyone
      I was wondering if the new Max 5 could have the option "save
      project" in order to save a patch with all sub-patches, sounds and
      extraobjects. I think this little detail makes us save a big amount
      of time.
      Thanks for thinking of it
      Cheers
      Sebastian Rivas,
      Ircam
      1 place Igor-Stravinsky F-75004 Paris
      Tel +33 (0)1 44 78 48 43
      Fax +33 (0)1 44 78 15 60
      GSM +33(0)6 63 70 19 36
      Sebastian.Rivas@ircam.fr
    • Oct 09 2007 | 2:08 pm
      I have a major problem with the new look.
      I despise the rounded edges.
      I will never become accustomed to this.
      Max is a programming language,
      I use it like a language.
      I use it something like how I'd use notepad++.
      Obviously Max is a different way of thinking, but the hard edges are very important for programming style.
      They allow for a WAY of programming.
      Don't take away the way.
      One thing I love to do is have one pixel of space in between two objects. Max4 looks freakin' awesome!
      I love my alignments of little things in Max4.
      I love pixels, and single-pixel-wide wires.
      I align up boxes as if they were characters of code in a text editor.
      I know it's not actually like that, but that's the only way I can think to describe this idea with something you might be able to relate to.
      The hard edges are part of Max's SYNTACTICAL STYLE.
      The edges themselves create an instantaneous ruler you can follow across with your eyes without thinking about it.
      My brain is actually physically wired internally to match the way that max wires and object boxes flow and align.
      You are going to break my brain.
      When edges are rounded, you will constantly second-guess yourself about whether something is aligned or not.
      A crosshair doesn't help.
      Maybe it is perfectly aligned, but the round edges play tricks on you.
      They're bad for programming.
      It's something like this:
      You've been coding in a language for years and you love to do:
      f(x)
      {
      ....r->n(x);
      }
      style syntax.
      All of a sudden somebody comes along and tells you all future versions of th