I support 64Bit development

[CoreStylerz]

The problem is not that tester, you are wrong.
The problem is that people want to install 64bit version of their DAW (including FL STUDIO now).
You can explain them that there's no advantage to use it unless they use tons of samples, or big multisamples part....

The problem is that. People want to use their 128^10 gb of RAM, also if they use not more that 1 gb of them.
In the music production worlds, there are not only professionals...
Amateurs sometimes are worst to deal with.

BTW, i can assure as i'm currently selling plugins that alot of people are waiting for my plugins (and of course of other FS devs) to be 64 bit.
It will take too much to port it ATM, still learning.

[tester]

What can I say. Among my friends, usually if something does not works as expected, then the first question I hear - "is there a way to make some sort of bridge, to make it work"? If there is a stable bridge to use 32bit plugins in 64bit DAW (I don't know, I use 32bits), then less effort and money would be to introduce such 3rd party product.

If your product is unique, then you don't lose customers, they are just slightly delayed. Because if your product is unique, then there is no way to get an alternative, because there is none.

Build upon quality.

[tulamide]

That's still not the point, tester. It's not about what CoreStylerz can do to hide the fact that a 64-bit-plugin-version can't be offered. It's about what DSPr is willing to do to keep FS within the standards. And the standard is 64-bit, and not just since yesterday. This will also affect the other, bigger part of FS, not only sound.

It seems that there was a good amount of money to produce some hardware. I think it's a shame that it wasn't used to keep the software up-to-date. What if the next Windows won't be 32-bit compatible anymore? What if there's no compatibility at all for any older OS, if it only works in 64-bit architecture? No, it is the wrong way to tell customers lies about a plugin. Instead FS needs to step into 64-bit, if it is meant to survive. It needs to. Period.

[tester]

Let's clarify something. Dspr never said that x64 is on their priority list. It was said that it may be done at some point in the future. That's all. It is folks like CS, who tries to impose an impression that it was otherwise. And I think especially such attitudes decided at some point in the past, that dspr stopped to communicate their roadmaps on the support forum.

Dspr never said, that they will keep FS going into sound area from which it originates. It originates from sound field, but there are plenty things to do outside it. Some folks still believe, that they deal with Synthmaker. But the app name was changed as well, isn't it?

CS strategy (yes, deliberate strategy), since the SM era - is to lament all over and over again. He believes, that emotional approach will change anything, I guess. But it only ferments us towards radicalization of thinking and talking.

I really doubt, that x64 support will come in the context of VST/VSTi production. It will be something else, that requires x64 processing, and such compatibility will be probably partial.

As for compatibility with 32bit architecture - One of computers in my work (a year old maybe?) is running with Win8. 90% of apps there are 32bit. So about what standards we are talking about?

[CoreStylerz]

1st of all, i was in the SM community more than 2 year before you. Tester. (can be a real username this?, i usally use for testing...)
So perhaps i know more about what OutSim was telling about the development.... Pretty nothing.
I don't try to impose nothing, im just stating what are my needs and probably all needs/dreams of other people here selling and releasing plugins.
In my country when someone states "We will straight look at" this mean "We will do that asap". Probably in your country words mean nothing, you cheat everyday...

I do not want to fements (is this correct in english?) any kind of bad purpose here. I just want to keep attention to that thing because is really important to me, since i really love SM/FS.

When you will back from your trip to the moon, you may notice that Flowstone is included in Fruity Loops studio.
And it's not software about fruit juices...

The audio market moved to x64 bit, is realty. Not all people are already using 64 bit daws but i believe more than the 60% of producers on Windows. (big numbers).

Or maybe you're too much intelligent and you know when all audio software companies just are stupid folks; clans of guys eating fruity juices listening crappy relaxing music.

I suggest you to read discussions about synthmaker and flowstone at KVR.

[Nubeat7]

don't you get tired of it, to repeat the same things over and over again? all this endless complaining kills my interest in the forum more and more.. better post some needful modules.

[CoreStylerz]

don't you get tired of it, to repeat the same things over and over again? all this endless complaining kills my interest in the forum more and more.. better post some needful modules.

Not all people share this opinion since i've received a lot of PM of encouragement..

I'm not at work with Flowstone ATM but yes, i will come up with some tools.

[JB_AU]

I used fruityloops 1.0 in 199x , back when it was a baby & ts404 was the insane thing.
Once i showed people how to add patterns to the playlist, most of those people became addicts

Like i said earlier, re-writing fs from x86 to x64 is the BIGGEST! Task & would take years of development time.

exe.dll & vst.dll are NOT dll's , they are WRAPPERS , they run your schematic/code.

Hire a programmer that is fluent in x86/64 intel assembler, who can write a patcher for your 32bit vst plugins & make them appear 64bit & give them 64bit unlimited memory.

[tulamide]

Hmm, I seem to have stirred up a hornets' nest that I wasn't aware of. That wasn't my intention.

However, if someone ignores the progress in the digital world, it isn't helpful either. For example, saying that still x% of 32-bit Software works isn't a sign of a standard. Processors are of 64-bit architecture, the operating systems are of 64-bit architecture. This is the standard. That there is a second, 32-bit processor, or an emulation of a 32-bit processor (depends on the manufacturer), and an operating system that still runs double tracked is not something you can rely on. People that have 64-bit architecture in their computers want to use the full advantages (which are more than using more RAM). A software ignoring this will fall behind. As I said earlier, this is true for everything, not just audio.

But that's all I'll contribute to that topic, as I didn't want this to boil over (again).

[CoreStylerz]

I used fruityloops 1.0 in 199x , back when it was a baby & ts404 was the insane thing.
Once i showed people how to add patterns to the playlist, most of those people became addicts

Like i said earlier, re-writing fs from x86 to x64 is the BIGGEST! Task & would take years of development time.

exe.dll & vst.dll are NOT dll's , they are WRAPPERS , they run your schematic/code.

Hire a programmer that is fluent in x86/64 intel assembler, who can write a patcher for your 32bit vst plugins & make them appear 64bit & give them 64bit unlimited memory.

You mean that will be possible to make a wrapper to make it appear as a 64bit plugin, like a bridge?