Can we save modules as txt/vst alternative?

[guyman]

Let's say we are using flowstone to build a daw. It isn't practical because we cannot host vsts in flowstone. But what if we were not limited by what vsts can input and output? what if one were to abandon the market and all 3rd party vsts and be able to load up flowstone modules independently, thus making way for a modular system developed in flowstone?

Just thoughts... but maybe someone could provide a solution?

[Spogg]

I’m not really sure I follow your thoughts, sorry.

In FlowStone you can have as many “independent” modules as you want at the top level. So you could have say 3 synths and 4 effects and patch them together as you wish, and then play it.
Of course you can only save the thing as a schematic, not as a VST export for the whole configuration. But if you don’t want to use a DAW or VSTs then you already have what you want.

I suspect therefore that I have the wrong end of the stick, or I’m possibly completely lacking in the stick department.

Cheers

Spogg

[trogluddite]

Modules can only be added or removed dynamically from within the FlowStone application by dragging them from the toolbox etc. It is possible to import/export modules directly as .hom files to the user's toolbox folder (subject to Windows file/folder permissions), but AFAIK this is not dynamic, either - if you add a new toolbox module by writing a new file to the toolbox folder, you have to close and re-open FlowStone before the toolbox will see it.

In exports, it's not possible to dynamically add or remove modules at all. You can change how the modules which are present are wired together with selectors etc., but you can't change what modules the schematic contains. This would require very low-level access to the 'tree' of data which describes the schematic, which we don't have (and probably with good reason - it would be incredibly easy to break the schematic by tinkering with the raw schematic data!)

[guyman]

Trophy goes to Trog on this one, but thank you Spogg. Thank you both !

For someone who doesn't know code, I've become extremely proficient at expressing my creativity, and engineering what I need - in Flowstone. At this point it's become practical for me to create almost anything I would use a DAW for, and I'm damn near ready to make track mixers/playlists and sequencers (already have cooked up some infantile ones that have unique features). I'ma musician first, and I now see the light that will allow me to break free of a linear system and make a more dynamic and modular creative environment utilizing the tools I've made and picked up here on the forum... alas withouyt a vsthost... making this modular environment a reality is further out...

though maybe I should just build a DAW schematic.... lol. I guess flowstone is as modular as it gets...


So if anyone wants to help build the GOD DAW schematic ... hollar at me !

[Spogg]

Trophy goes to Trog on this one...

As would be expected!

Trog has a real talent for grasping the core question that I seem to lack. I think I tend to answer the question I would like to have seen. I need to correct that by going away and giving myself a damn good thrashing.

Cheers

Spogg

[trogluddite]

Trog has a real talent for grasping the core question that I seem to lack. I think I tend to answer the question I would like to have seen.

I have the opposite problem - my Aspergian literal-mindedness means that I get funny looks for answering questions in great depth that were only meant rhetorically. I was well into adulthood (assuming I ever got there!) before I worked out that "rather sweaty" or "I had a satisfying poo today" aren't usually the kind of answers people expect to "How are you, mate?" (if I'm a bit flustered, such things do still slip out sometimes.)

making this modular environment a reality is further out...

Yes, the lack of VST embedding has been a talking point going right back to the SynthMaker days. The official line was always that it won't ever be supported because of the possibility of DSPr being seen to encourage the stealing of commercial code by wrapping it in a SM/FS skin.

I've never been a big fan of linear DAWs either - I prefer self-contained 'performances' as much as possible, usually using loopers etc. My current solution is Usine, which is somewhere between a DAW and a modular environment. It has its own, internal patching system, similar to FlowStone's (though not half as slick to use) - and this does allow VST plugins to be incorporated into patches, either with or without using their GUI. Quite a few of my recent FlowStone gadgets have been little 'mini-plugins' to embed within Usine patches (they often don't even need an FS GUI, as Usine's own GUI widgets can control the VST parameters very easily.)