Welcome Guest! To enable all features please Login or Register.

Notification

Icon
Error

Forum Jump  
VEPro feature request
Last post Fri, Jul 08 2011 by Arceo, 20 replies.
Options
Go to last post
Posted on Thu, Jun 30 2011 12:42
by dragsquares
Joined on Sat, Aug 13 2005, Los Angeles, Posts 76

I should say first that VEPro is fabulous, fabulous software.  Very much a game-changer for me.  I recall struggling with many other solutions, some of which worked and some that didn't very well, and VEPro has been amazing.

It's certainly possible that I missed this, but I don't think so.  I'd like to be able to control and edit instances of VEPro on an external computer remotely, using my main computer, without using Remote Access or the like.  Doable?

Richard F.W. Davis
Composer, Producer, Arranger

VSL, VEP, OT BS, AM/SM, CSS/CSSS, SSO, 8Dio, NI, JFK, KFC, JFC, WYD?, MTBF, TL;DR
_______________________________________________
I am a firm believer in substantiating one’s posts to reduce internet traffic. If one doesn’t have time for evidence, one doesn’t have time for opinion.
Posted on Thu, Jun 30 2011 13:19
by MS
Joined on Wed, Feb 19 2003, Vienna, Austria, Posts 1760

Without using remote access? That is not possible and will not be possible.

--
Martin Saleteg
Software Developer
Vienna Symphonic Library GmbH
Posted on Thu, Jun 30 2011 22:41
by dragsquares
Joined on Sat, Aug 13 2005, Los Angeles, Posts 76

Well, this is my ignorance speaking - I figure if you can get it to push 128 audio ports and 32 MIDI channels per instance, a little thing like remote commands to and feedback from slave devices wouldn't be much trouble.  Perhaps it's a protocol/port issue?  Why couldn't it be a little proprietary data along with everything else?   (I don't mean for every plugin, of course - just the Vienna stuff and the ensemble mixer.)

Anyway, it's still great.

Richard F.W. Davis
Composer, Producer, Arranger

VSL, VEP, OT BS, AM/SM, CSS/CSSS, SSO, 8Dio, NI, JFK, KFC, JFC, WYD?, MTBF, TL;DR
_______________________________________________
I am a firm believer in substantiating one’s posts to reduce internet traffic. If one doesn’t have time for evidence, one doesn’t have time for opinion.
Posted on Fri, Jul 01 2011 15:08
by MS
Joined on Wed, Feb 19 2003, Vienna, Austria, Posts 1760

Controlling a volume and pan here and there is not a problem, but controlling complex instruments like VIPro and other hosted instruments would be quite some challenge.

--
Martin Saleteg
Software Developer
Vienna Symphonic Library GmbH
Posted on Sun, Jul 03 2011 10:34
by mosso
Joined on Thu, Jun 23 2005, London, England, Posts 376

Can I ask why you don't want to use remote access like RDP or VNC? These protocols are well established and stable and there are already good applications out there to make use of them. Maybe if I understood your issue I could offer some solutions.

Martin Thornton
<a href="http://www.mosso.co.uk/" target="_blank">www.mosso.co.uk</a>
Posted on Mon, Jul 04 2011 23:59
by dragsquares
Joined on Sat, Aug 13 2005, Los Angeles, Posts 76
mosso wrote:

Can I ask why you don't want to use remote access like RDP or VNC? These protocols are well established and stable and there are already good applications out there to make use of them. Maybe if I understood your issue I could offer some solutions.

The thing is, I don't want more software, I want less.  It would be great if I could program the remote instances from the main machine, in the same environment, without changing windows or launching a remote environment.  That's it.  I know about the other solutions, I just don't want to do it that way.

Richard F.W. Davis
Composer, Producer, Arranger

VSL, VEP, OT BS, AM/SM, CSS/CSSS, SSO, 8Dio, NI, JFK, KFC, JFC, WYD?, MTBF, TL;DR
_______________________________________________
I am a firm believer in substantiating one’s posts to reduce internet traffic. If one doesn’t have time for evidence, one doesn’t have time for opinion.
Posted on Tue, Jul 05 2011 08:47
by mosso
Joined on Thu, Jun 23 2005, London, England, Posts 376
dragsquares wrote:
The thing is, I don't want more software, I want

I see. As as user of RDC (and previously VNC) I'm well used the the process of editing VEP instances remotely, but it's never felt at all like a clunky workaround or got in the way of my "flow". Have you tried it?

Martin Thornton
<a href="http://www.mosso.co.uk/" target="_blank">www.mosso.co.uk</a>
Posted on Tue, Jul 05 2011 09:50
by DG
Joined on Wed, May 12 2004, Posts 8608
dragsquares wrote:
mosso wrote:

Can I ask why you don't want to use remote access like RDP or VNC? These protocols are well established and stable and there are already good applications out there to make use of them. Maybe if I understood your issue I could offer some solutions.

The thing is, I don't want more software, I want less.  It would be great if I could program the remote instances from the main machine, in the same environment, without changing windows or launching a remote environment.  That's it.  I know about the other solutions, I just don't want to do it that way.

 

Well I guess you're out of luck then.

DG

Nuendo 6.03, 4.3
2 x Intel Xeon x5675 3.07GHz Hex Core
48GB RAM
Windows 7 (x64)Pro
RME Multiface II
Intensity
ATI HD5400 series graphics card
Posted on Tue, Jul 05 2011 15:42
by Bill
Joined on Fri, Sep 23 2005, Berkshires, MA, Posts 1042

 My thought exactly...

Finale 25, Sibelius 2018, Notion 6, Overture 5, Cubase 10.5, StaffPad
Win10 x64, 32GB RAM; Focusrite Scarlett 18i20
Kontakt, Bunch of VSL, VIP, VEP, EWQL Orch, Choir and Pianos
August Forster 190
Posted on Wed, Jul 06 2011 04:45
by dragsquares
Joined on Sat, Aug 13 2005, Los Angeles, Posts 76
mosso wrote:
Have you tried it?

Sure have, though in this case RDC doesn't apply as it's Mac-to-Mac, but there are other ways of doing that.  It's not that it doesn't work.  Just not how I'd like to do it.  I love when technology is invisible - in this case, just telling the host computer that the instance I'm creating gets its juice from the machine next to it, but interacting with it in the same way.  

If it's un-doable, fine.  I'm not a software programmer, just someone who uses the stuff.  But just from an anything's-possible point of view, I'm pretty sure it would have been cool.  Meanwhile, back to work.

Richard F.W. Davis
Composer, Producer, Arranger

VSL, VEP, OT BS, AM/SM, CSS/CSSS, SSO, 8Dio, NI, JFK, KFC, JFC, WYD?, MTBF, TL;DR
_______________________________________________
I am a firm believer in substantiating one’s posts to reduce internet traffic. If one doesn’t have time for evidence, one doesn’t have time for opinion.
Posted on Wed, Jul 06 2011 08:54
by MS
Joined on Wed, Feb 19 2003, Vienna, Austria, Posts 1760

It sounds like you want something like FXTeleport. The product already exists, but comes with a number of downsides. Doing processing on one machine and gui on another gives birth to several problems. First of all, the gui protocol is limited to a set of parameters (in case of FX-teleport, VST-Parameters). Any complex gui-core interaction like that in VIPro, or just a regular audio meter, just don't work. Second, the audio streams would have to be separate from instance to instance, which creates a network overhead and lowers total throughput. Third, the level of interaction (shortcuts, window handling etc) which is possible in a plugin window is a fraction of what a real application can do.


The Audio Unit plugin standard was written with over-network hosting in mind, some of Logic's plugins are usable on "node slaves", while presenting the gui on the master machine. You won't see any more complicated multi-platform plugins running this way however, pretty much all developers I know uses memory pointers to gain direct access to core information from the plugins gui. Simply because it is easy, fast and works on all platforms and plugin formats.


VEPro was actually developed with all of this in mind - to offer a greater control over plugins and instruments, since the hosting in most sequencers usually ends up in a constant-moving-around-of-plugin-windows-madness-soup. VEPro, if used properly, will definitely increase the overview of your orchestra, whether used on a slave over RDC/VNC/ARD or hosted locally.


--
Martin Saleteg
Software Developer
Vienna Symphonic Library GmbH
Posted on Wed, Jul 06 2011 08:57
by DG
Joined on Wed, May 12 2004, Posts 8608

 FXT doesn't present the GUI on the host machine either. The only time I've seen this sort of thing mentioned is for PLAY Pro, which doesn't exist. Wink

DG

Nuendo 6.03, 4.3
2 x Intel Xeon x5675 3.07GHz Hex Core
48GB RAM
Windows 7 (x64)Pro
RME Multiface II
Intensity
ATI HD5400 series graphics card
Posted on Wed, Jul 06 2011 09:03
by MS
Joined on Wed, Feb 19 2003, Vienna, Austria, Posts 1760

I thought that FXT had a "local mode" which allows for precisely this.Otherwise, the Logic node-able plugins allow for this, as I wrote in the previous post.

--
Martin Saleteg
Software Developer
Vienna Symphonic Library GmbH
Posted on Wed, Jul 06 2011 10:39
by fritzflotow
Joined on Mon, Apr 23 2007, Posts 322

While I believe that would be quite a task, I think it could be helpful.

On the other hand I would not call it a "top priority" since most  of the time I just build a template and never look at it for most of the time doing all changes via midi automation. Only on rare ocasions I touch the VI-pro interface to build a very specific patch once the template is ready to go. For the template building I switch on my second screen to the slave using a hardware monitor switch (so, all ethernet bandwidth is still there for VEpro). For me that works quite well. 

If this would be a gigantic effort, I would say: no, not important enough! I would rather have the option to midi automate some of VI parameters, that are currently unavailable for midi learn (e.g. in the options menu). With TouchOSC I can build my own VI parameters GUI without ever having to change a screen or clicking a button. Only for parameters that are not midi-learnable I have to switch screen. Check it out! It's really great!

Posted on Wed, Jul 06 2011 12:52
by DG
Joined on Wed, May 12 2004, Posts 8608
MS wrote:

I thought that FXT had a "local mode" which allows for precisely this.Otherwise, the Logic node-able plugins allow for this, as I wrote in the previous post.

 

Martin, I haven't used FXT for years, but I don't ever remember getting the GUI on my host machine. Maybe I just never found that setting. Embarrassed

DG

Nuendo 6.03, 4.3
2 x Intel Xeon x5675 3.07GHz Hex Core
48GB RAM
Windows 7 (x64)Pro
RME Multiface II
Intensity
ATI HD5400 series graphics card
Posted on Wed, Jul 06 2011 23:27
by Arceo
Joined on Tue, Sep 28 2010, Posts 61
MS wrote:
The Audio Unit plugin standard was written with over-network hosting in mind

Hi Martin, if AU Plugs were written to comply with modern network technology, how come then that its spec is limited to just 16 midi channels? Isn't this number so 1982sh?!? ;-)
I'm asking because I really love VE-PRO, but I'm forced to work with dozen of open instances for my orchestral templates. And this way (I understand from technical posts) I'm loosing the horse power that my i7 could give me with just one instance full of multiple Kontakts...
Hi. Arceo
Posted on Thu, Jul 07 2011 10:20
by mosso
Joined on Thu, Jun 23 2005, London, England, Posts 376
Arceo wrote:
I'm loosing the horse power that my i7 could give me with just one instance full of multiple Kontakts...

If you're using Logic you're better off with multiple instances (thanks to the one core overload issue).

M

Martin Thornton
<a href="http://www.mosso.co.uk/" target="_blank">www.mosso.co.uk</a>
Posted on Thu, Jul 07 2011 14:28
by Arceo
Joined on Tue, Sep 28 2010, Posts 61
mosso wrote:
If you're using Logic you're better off with multiple instances (thanks to the one core overload issue).

Nope! I use Digital Performer as a main DAW and an Intel i7 slave that runs all the instances. So no need for me to differentiate instances to split the load, on the contrary I'd better stick with just one instance to save cpu cycles and to have a more easy work-flow. As of today I'm forced to add reverbs and daelays (on separate bus) on each and every instance I need to open and, if I need to make a change at one parameter ,then I need to replicate it to any open instance. Having to deal with just one instance, for this matter only, would be a great time saver.

Cheers.
Arceo
Posted on Thu, Jul 07 2011 14:57
by DG
Joined on Wed, May 12 2004, Posts 8608

Arceo wrote:
MS wrote:
The Audio Unit plugin standard was written with over-network hosting in mind
Hi Martin, if AU Plugs were written to comply with modern network technology, how come then that its spec is limited to just 16 midi channels? Isn't this number so 1982sh?!? ;-) I'm asking because I really love VE-PRO, but I'm forced to work with dozen of open instances for my orchestral templates. And this way (I understand from technical posts) I'm loosing the horse power that my i7 could give me with just one instance full of multiple Kontakts... Hi. Arceo
 

The reason is that Apple believes that multi-timbral instruments are a thing of the past. Until this changes, if indeed it does, the AU spec won't be altered.

DG

Nuendo 6.03, 4.3
2 x Intel Xeon x5675 3.07GHz Hex Core
48GB RAM
Windows 7 (x64)Pro
RME Multiface II
Intensity
ATI HD5400 series graphics card
Posted on Fri, Jul 08 2011 20:16
by Arceo
Joined on Tue, Sep 28 2010, Posts 61
DG wrote:

Arceo wrote:
MS wrote:
The Audio Unit plugin standard was written with over-network hosting in mind
Hi Martin, if AU Plugs were written to comply with modern network technology, how come then that its spec is limited to just 16 midi channels? Isn't this number so 1982sh?!? ;-) I'm asking because I really love VE-PRO, but I'm forced to work with dozen of open instances for my orchestral templates. And this way (I understand from technical posts) I'm loosing the horse power that my i7 could give me with just one instance full of multiple Kontakts... Hi. Arceo
 

The reason is that Apple believes that multi-timbral instruments are a thing of the past. Until this changes, if indeed it does, the AU spec won't be altered.

DG



Ah...! And what do you think they believe to be the substitute of such an archaic piece of software as a multi-timbral plugin? ;-)
Arceo
You cannot post new threads in this forum.
You cannot reply to threads in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.