So, when is 64bit VST3.5.x be released in FS?

[trogluddite]

These are not "demands", and should not be taken as demands from the devs, they are ideas.

Yeah, sorry - winter always gives me the grumps - little too much "rhetorical flourish" there now that I read it back!
And you have certainly been one of the most constructive contributors lately, so I apologise if I seemed to be aiming that at you personally - or anybody else for that matter - no-one has said anything that I have any major disagreement with.
Just a bit of an odd way of venting my own frustration, I guess - the memory of the pages long moan-a-thons, back in the bad old days of no Malc being around, getting me spooked.

I am a lot more satisfied with, and inspired to make things by, FS than I let on, you know!

[VPDannyMan]

No worries..
There are things that are just going to have to happen. 64 bit support is one, there's just no question of that. For some like you said, if it does not happen pretty soon, then a new development platform will have to happen and there will be less and less sales of this tool as a result of (Among other things) less representation in the marketplace.

Now as far as being motivated, I have lost my motivation temporarily because of the Ruby DLL thing. I know that it will get fixed, but I just wish stuff like that did not happen in the first place. My excitement level went from 10 to 1 almost instantly. I would like to be talking and learning about all the cool new things that can be done, but I find myself waiting to find out what form this Ruby fix will take.

[infuzion]

Somewhat related; 64bit beta for FL Studio is out; no mention of SM there?
http://forum.image-line.com/viewtopic.p ... 0&t=104931

[VPDannyMan]

I sort of don't think we'll see a 64 bit version of FS or surely they would have been on it by now. I mean its at a point where there is almost no reason to release a plug created with FS anymore (regardless of how good FS is or your plug). So many are using 64 bit systems and want matching 64 bit plugs. God help you if you release a 32 bit plug without a matching 64 bit plug!. You'll get slammed! Forget about MAC or RTAS, lets just get with the times and at the very least be able to create 64 bit plugs!

We're stuck here in this situation as DSPR holds all the strings, its not like we can do anything to make our plugs 64 bit, it has to come from them. Ruby is nice, all the new features are nice, but without the fundamentals in place whats the point? 64 bit is now a fundamental.

Just my 2 cents..

[ccpurno]

Hi Malc,

any update on x64 progress?

Thnx alot
CC

[Perfect Human Interface]

The necessity of 64 bit is greatly overstated here.
Sure it's reasonable to assume FS should grow to support 64 bit at some point, but the situation is hardly that 32 bit is now outdated.
The ONLY benefits to a 64 bit plugin format are 1) the plugin can access more memory (more than 4GB), which is only necessary for large sample libraries, and 2) it MAY run more stable in a 64 bit host (this is dependent on the given host's 32 bit wrapper). Other than that, you're fine working in 32 bit. There are still bajillions of plugins out there that are only 32 bit-- far more than are 64 bit-- and any DAW software worth a dime will support those plugins even in 64 bit. Keep in mind that not all major DAW software has even released a 64 bit version yet. In fact, if you DON'T have need for the extra RAM, you're better off NOT using 64 bit software and just sticking to the 32 bit host.

Long story short: relax a bit.

Just thought I'd chip in.

[nix]

hmm
FS plugs are often RAM heavy,
i try and be minimal,
but it all seems to add up.
When FS goes 64-bit I will too.
There are a considerable amount of people who
use 64-bit exclusively,
and bridges are often flaky.
I think it's important.
As a novice dev,
it would be great to offer it IMO

[VPDannyMan]

The necessity of 64 bit is greatly overstated here.
Sure it's reasonable to assume FS should grow to support 64 bit at some point, but the situation is hardly that 32 bit is now outdated.
The ONLY benefits to a 64 bit plugin format are 1) the plugin can access more memory (more than 4GB), which is only necessary for large sample libraries, and 2) it MAY run more stable in a 64 bit host (this is dependent on the given host's 32 bit wrapper). Other than that, you're fine working in 32 bit. There are still bajillions of plugins out there that are only 32 bit-- far more than are 64 bit-- and any DAW software worth a dime will support those plugins even in 64 bit. Keep in mind that not all major DAW software has even released a 64 bit version yet. In fact, if you DON'T have need for the extra RAM, you're better off NOT using 64 bit software and just sticking to the 32 bit host.

Long story short: relax a bit.

Just thought I'd chip in.

With all due respect..
Obviously you have no idea what you are talking about in terms of releases.
What was the last plugin that you released?

It not about whether we as developers want it, frankly I could care less, its about what the consumers of our products want. If you release a plugin and give excuses like you just mentioned (which by the way you are correct on), you'll get a "new one" torn for you. There's bee 500 people bashing you and you be defending your stance from now till doomsday. So, in short, yes of course you are right, but, try telling people out there that they don't need 64 bit..

edited:
After I re-read my initial comment it came across as too harsh.

[kortezzzz]

Hi,
I'm new to this forum. coming from "synthedit"'s world and got interested in
"FS" as well. i tried the demo and really liked the concept of "FS".
It much easier for newbies to design and to built new ideas with the given tools, but
i still think that "synthedit" has it's own added value compared to "FS",
especially at the the midi implementation. as a big fan of plugins developing
and using, i must say that the final decision about buying (or not) "FS" is
dependent on it's diversity compared to "synthedit". and when i talk about
diversity, i talk about "64bit save-as" and mac format support as well.
i know "synthedit" guys are planning to put those features in their next release
as soon as they can, because of...

the consumers of their consumers.

and they definitely know what they are doing;
i spoke with one of my consumers and he told me that he moved to 64bit without
looking back, as the 64bit DAWs have a way better recording capabilities and they may handle
bigger and heavier projects as well, with better audio and midi performing and stability.
the guy is in the business for 20 years, so you tell me: can i argue with that?
i would like to see "FS" giving sonority and richness to the vst developing market,
but they should focus on the heart's desire of... the consumers of their consumers.
eventually, that will be the difference between success and a miss.
sorry for my bad english. hope i explained my point clearly.

[jcsquire]

Just chiming in as a user, not as a dev. There seems to be confusion among a minority why people would want 64 bit plugs since for most they don't offer any real advantages. Let me explain why from one perspective. I am a regular gigging musician who uses VSTs live.

I switched to a 64 bit host, simply because when I was building a new system last year I was faced with the a choice of using an older or newer technology. You see I maintain a fairly complicated setlist of my band's repertoire, and I need to choose either a 32 bit or 64 bit host to run them. It is simply not an option when the vocalist says "Feelin' Alright"to respond "Wait a second while I switch hosts". I have experimentally found jbridging decreases system stability slightly...perhaps causing problems in 1 out of 100 songs. A 1% decrease in stability might not sound like much, but in a 3 hour gig we do about 50 songs...that would mean choosing to jbridge would mean choosing to have a trainwreck every other gig...an untenable choice; it would destroy my band's reputation in a week's time.

So why did I switch to 64? It was not because I needed the increased addressable memory space. It was because it is clear that at some point 32 bit plugs will be Pluto-ed, and if that time is 5 years in the future, I don't want to have to re-do the next 5 years of my work developing new complicated patches with splits, midi-addressed events, and triggered playbacks when I could be building them as I go in a 64 bit environment starting now.

I know host manufacturers could conceivably release 64 bit hosts that can read patches saved by 32 bit versions of them, then search the dll folders for 64 bit versions of the 32 bit plugs for replacement, and then the 64 bit plugs should be able to read the patches saved by the 32 bit version and correctly apply keymappings, transpositions, and all that. But they do not, and I doubt they ever will.

So users are not necessarily technology illiterate and simply chasing what they perceive as the next shiny new thing, even though the shiny new things gives us zero practical advantages. At least some of us are motivated by simple economics - the desire not to re-do years of accumulated 32 bit patch work when it is inevitably obsoleted.