Thanks for the reply, Paul.

I wonder if a sort of IP translation is a bad idea to implement in the VEP plugin.
This would also give much more flexibility in configuring and expanding setups with new servers.

In the past I have already requested features that were effectively incorporated in the software (like HERE).

A feedback from someone at VSL would be much appreciated. Paul? Martin?

WARNING!
This is a very specific problem, not the usual "I have two networks and I don't know how to configure VEP and Internet at the same time..." ;)
Thanks God, I am a computer engineer and I don't have problems dealing with advanced and sophisticated computer and network issues. :)

There is something that should be definitely looked into, when it comes to network management, in both the VEP plugin and server, which is one of the following (or both!):
1) allowing the user to "force" VEP on a specific network adapter (regardless of the IP addresses)
2) changing the behavior of VEP, so that if the plugin doesn't find a preserved instance at the IP address saved in the host project, it would scan the whole network looking for that specific instance name at a different IP address (please refer to THIS THREAD, where this issue was discussed, but nobody from VSL ever replied).

My studio setup includes a PC host and a PC server. Both computers have a dual ethernet connection, so that the first one is used for internet (on 192.168.0.x) on both computers and the second one is used exclusively for VEP (through a switch, on a separate network 192.168.1.x).
For the VEP side, the host is assigned to fixed IP 192.168.1.199 while the server is assigned to fixed IP 192.168.1.200.
Everything works like a charm!

The problem comes in when I am on the go and have to work with my mobile setup (a MacBook Pro + the same PC server), being forced to use whatever internet connection I get, through an external router (that I cannot configure as I like). In that case, I have my MacBook Pro connecting to the internet through the WiFi and to the PC server through an Ethernet adapter plugged into the Thunderbolt port.

Now, in that specific case, if the DHCP of the WiFi router is configured to assign IP addresses in the range 192.168.1.x, I am forced to use the SAME NETWORK for both Internet and VEP over TWO DIFFERENT adapters (I could change the VEP network to 192.168.y.x, where y <> 1, but my orchestral template would not connect anymore and manually reconnecting 20+ instances every time I open a new project is not fun at all!).

Now, I managed to PARTIALLY solve this issue using the following configuration:

• on the MacBook
• the LAN adapter is set as 192.168.1.199 with the gateway set as 192.168.1.200 (the VEP server)
• in Terminal, I added the route: sudo route add -net 192.168.1.200 192.168.1.199 (this way the VEP server's IP address is looked for through that specific network adapter)
• the WiFi adapter's priority is higher than the LAN's one (otherwise I won't connect to the internet)
• on the VEP server
• the VEP adapter is set as 192.168.1.200 with the gateway set as 192.168.1.199 (the IP address of the MacBook's LAN adapter)

With that configuration, my orchestral template is happily finding the instances on the VEP server, using the IP address that is saved in the host project (Nuendo, by the way).

There is only one issue!
Since the WiFi adapter has higher priority over the LAN adapter in the MacBook (otherwise I would not be able to surf the web), whenever I try to add a new instrument to my template, the VEP plugin, on connecting to the server, is offering me a list of instances through the WiFi, rather than through the LAN. And in order to avoid that, I have to select an instance from the list and manually change its address in the "Slave Address" box.
Not too bad, after all... but of course not ideal... especially if you happen to forget it and connect a new instance through the WiFi! :P

Ultimately, I think the best approach to avoid A LOT of issues related to the network configuration is to allow the user to specify, as an option, the possibility to force all the connection to go through a specific network adapter, as it is suggested by the attached picture.

In addition to that, the behavior of the plugin while looking for a specific instance should be changed so that, if that particular instance is not found at the given IP address, the whole network should be scanned and any found instance should be replaced to the original, automatically or upon user's request.

I come across this situation quite often, but I have just finished working on a project where the composer I am orchestrating for provided me with his orchestral template, specifically the Metaframe he is using.

Now, the only thing cannot be granted to be always the same between different configurations of different professionals is the IP address of our slaves. Sometimes they are in a different range (i.e. 192.168.0.x vs 192.168.1.x), so even reassigning the correct IP address is not always an option.

Currently, upon opening a project, the VEPro plugin scans for the available servers, looking for the specific IP address the plugin was connected to when the project was saved last time. If it finds it, it looks for the right preserved instance. If it does not find it, it stops searching and stays disconnected.

I think the searching strategy should be a little different. The plugin - in case it does not find the server at the expected IP address - should ask the users whether they want to scan all the other servers, searching for an instance with the same name of the one saved within the project.

Please find my idea illustrated in the following flow chart (reading left to right).

Hi Cyril,

of course I did. I experimented with several different configurations:

- IP manually assigned

- IP automatically assigned by the DHCP server

- IP automatically assigned by the DHCP server, but using an address manually reserved into the router

Furthermore, I want to underline again that usign my previous modem/router, all the instances connected instantaneously in all the three situations described above. This is why I am saying that there should be some features in the new router that stop the instances to connect instantaneously. Or some kind of configuration that could sort out this situation.

Hi Cyril,

thank you again for your advices. My network adapters are bridgeable under Windows, so I bridged them in order to double the bandwidth. This way, both the cables from both the computers are connected to the same switch as they were one and only connection.

I must remind you that this was the same configuration I used to have before changing the router and that before that change my instances connected instantaneously. There is something to do with the modem/router for sure, because that is the only thing that has changed.

PS: I am a PC guru, but I cannot solve something that is not well documented anywhere. ;)

Of course I am not... ;)

My host and my slave computers don't even have a wireless adapter. They are both hard-wired to a switch, that is hard-wired to the router.

Thank you anyway for your advice.

Luigi.

Hi DG,

thanks for your reply.

My new router (from Time Warner Cable) is a Motorola SBG6580.

Besides the fact that I set all the machines in my network to static IPs, the router comes with a IP reservation function, so you can activate the automatic IP assignment on all your computer, but tell the router to always assign the same IP address to a certain MAC address.

The same feature was present in my previous router, but in that case, both in static and in dinamic IP assignment, the connections between the Host and the Slave was light-speed fast.

I will contact VSL at the email address you suggested.

Thank you so much.

Luigi.

Hi Cyril,

thank you for your prompt reply. Actually my setup is PC-based and I use Steinberg software (both Cubase 6 and Nuendo 5.5).

Nonetheless I will try the procedure you suggested, which should work even in a PC or Hybrid environment.

I would really appreciate if somebody from VSL could share their experience about that, considering that in my circle of colleagues I have at least 4 people struggling with the same issue.

Thanks, Cyril.

First of all, I want to say that I have read all the threads in the forum regarding this issue.

Here, what I want to ask for is VSL help to figure out what ACTUALLY causes this problem (routing, DNS, IP management, passthrough technologies, etc.).

My previous scenario was: Host Computer and Slave Server both connected to a switch; the switch connected to the router to have internet access on both the computers; all the IP addresses statically set; both the computer could access the web; the 16 VE Pro plugins inside Nuendo connected to their instance in fractions of seconds (the instances with just Vienna Instruments ALL connected SIMULTANEOUSLY, so that I could not tell which one connected before the others!). The whole template in Nuendo loaded in not more than 20 seconds (16 instances with 200+ audio channels from VE Pro back to Nuendo's mixer).

In the new configuration the only thing that changed is the router (I moved to a new apartment and I had to apply for a new contract with TimeWarnerCable and they offered me a new model). The new scenario is the same as before, except that the switch is now connected to the new router.

And here comes the problem.

EACH plugin connects to its own instance in 3 to 10 seconds, bringing the total loading time of the whole template to 2-3 minutes.

For your information, most of the instances have the DECOUPLE ON, so it should take no time at all to connect, as they are not sending any data to the instances.

I feel there is a network routing issue, based on the model of the modem/router: it is like each plugin is "looking around" to find its own instance, which doesn't make any sense to me, especially considering that I have static IP on the whole network.

I wish VSL could dig into this problem and tell us how to solve it.

What I can tell is that I used to work connected to the web without any problem, having all the plugins connecting to their own instances almost simultaneously.

I know several people affected by the same issue.

Thanks.

Just a reminder for the next update...

That's awesome, Martin!

Thank you so much!

Paul, thanks for your consideration!

Besides, I believe that my suggestion is really nothing special to implement.

Hi Paul,

thank you for your reply. I know it's still two people, but I would like to know what you think about the idea. In my humble opinion, the way the Decouple feature behaves now could be improved implementing it.

As a matter of fact, either ways, regardless you have it ON or OFF, the server doesn't load the data from the plugin. If the Decouple is ON, the plugin doesn't send any data at all, and that's fine. But if the Decouple is OFF, the user is forced to go across all the plugins for which the decouple is off and manually load the data. I don't think this makes so much sense.

I believe there are more than only two people asking for this feature...

BUMP!

I have a big template on my VEP Server (a Dual Xeon - 32 GB RAM machine).

For all the instances loading sample-based instruments (mainly Vienna stuff), I am happy with the "Decouple" function, as I don't need either to store the plugin data inside the sequencer project file nor to reload them when I reopen the file. Good!

Conversely for certain instruments (mainly synth plugins or fast-loading sample plugin like Omnisphere), I would like that the "Decouple OFF" automatically loaded the plugin data in VEP without forcing the user to access the options appearing under the yellow arrow toolbar button. Due to the current behavior, the user must choose whether loading the plugin data or not for each plugin where the decouple button is off.

So my request is the possibility to have some kind of preference option in the VEP Server side like:

"When DECOUPLE is OFF for a plugin

1 - Always load plugin data

2 - Always discard plugin data

3 - Ask the user"

Thanks!

Another update.

I've noticed that the problem doesn't seem to happen in Nuendo 5 64 bit. So I was able to continue building my template there and then loading it back in Nuendo 5 32 bit. And it loaded perfectly, with all the instances of the VE Pro plugin connected to their respective instance in the VE Pro server.

The strange thing is that with my current configuration I'm not even close to 4 GB (only 2.6 for Nuendo 5 32 bit under Windows 7 64 bit).

If somebody has a suggestion to explain why this happens, it would be very much appreciated.

This further try is even weirder!

I removed Stylus, Addictive Drums and Omnisphere from the VST Instruments Rack of Nuendo 5 (now only 9 working VE Pro plugins are loaded).

I saved the project.

I close Nuendo 5 and then reopen it.

I load the project again and I add a new VE Pro: when I press the connect button, the Available Slaves list is empty!!!

No chances to connect to the server!

FYI:

Host - Windows 7 Home Premium on Intel i7 with 6 GB - Nuendo 5

Server - Windows 7 Professional on Intel Dual Xeon Quad with 32 GB of RAM - VE Pro 7043

I've searched the forum for this issue but I haven't found anything.

I have my template already set up with 9 instances of the VE Pro plugin (7043) in my Nuendo 5 VST Instruments Rack.

Then I added other three plugins (Addictive Drums, Omnisphere and Stylus RMX).

Now I need to add a new instance of the VE Pro plugin, but when I try to press the CONNECT button, the plugins shows up an empty "Available Slaves" list (neither the "New instance" is visible).

I tried to turn off (not remove, simply turn off) every plugin but the new one, but it didn't work: the "Available Slaves" list is still empty.

Then I tried to remove "Stylus RMX" and after that the list of the available slaves showed the unconnected instances + the new instance.

I loaded a new instance of Stylus RMX and the list of the available slaves is empty again.

The same happens removing Addicitve Drums and/or Omnisphere.

May somebody explain what causes this problem?

Thank you Karel!

I really appreciate your kind consideration!

Way much better. It's almost immediate and this is particularly noticeable when you open the VE Pro Server after a fresh start up of the system. In the same situation with any previous release, it took a way longer time, especially to scan the licenses.

I wouldn't say I'm disappointed of this change. I was just curious to know if it's a precise choice or just a mistake compiling the setup executable for the latest release.

I get your point, but the fact is that check has never been there before. I always installed every previous release without having any license on my eLicenser. Your consideration about the double server/plugin installation doesn't justify, in my opinion, this change. In every previous version you could install both of them, but you couldn't run the server without the license. This approach makes absolutely more sense to me. And in fact, this approach was the one for any previous version.

It's not a big deal to move one key to the Host just during the setup. My wonder was about the reasons why you decided to change this behavior.