DSP Robotics Support

So far, I have been enjoying experimenting with this software, however I have run into an issue that's preventing me from achieving my goals. I have a lot of ideas, and I want to be able to turn these ideas into functioning, free plugins that I can share to the world.

The problem is that I just suck at coding, and I find it to be pretty unfun. I have tried learning C# in Unity, and more recently, I tried to learn Ruby. However it just isn't something that I can really become invested into.

So, how powerful are the inbuilt modules? Can I build a completely unique synth from the ground up using just the modules, or is Ruby something I have to learn in order to achieve my goals? Is their any guides/tutorials that you would recommend that would teach me how to use these modules?

I would say the whole idea of FlowStone was to make it easy to make stuff by being a visual programming environment. The coding possibilities could be seen as extensions for those who want to dive deeper.

The stock modules give a very extensive range of possibilities for realising a huge range of creations and when I first started that’s all I had to play with. As I progressed, members here offered their own suggestions and modules which in many cases were more flexible and CPU-efficient. I feel sure you would get the same help, from me and others.

In my experience, learning the basics of DSP coding has proved the most useful to create customised functions and modules, assembly coding (ASM) can improve CPU usage and Ruby is good for complex functions in the green world and is important for working with MIDI. But none of this is actually essential to make something unique, just your creative use of the tools available. Maybe it’s not the best analogy, but consider how many different and unique things you can make with a box of Lego. You don’t have to make the bricks!

One thing you could do is examine the contents of my Quilcom stuff, especially the more recent projects, and make use of anything you find interesting. If you know exactly what you want, just ask and you’ll most likely get a useful response which you can not only use but learn from.

Thank you for your response! This is very helpful, and I do hope to improve and learn! I am having trouble opening some flowstone projects. When opening, I get an error that says "Flowstone requires a CPU that supports SSE instructions." This only happens with some flowstone projects.

This is a really tough question(s).
I think Spogg answered it well...

PS
Spogg is hardly representative of the average Flowstone user. Understatement of the day
And, he is also always nice to answer alot of questions...

However it just isn't something that I can really become invested into.

Sound like me
But I have coded/scripted some (C#/javascript and a tiny bit of C and asm a long long time ago) but aren't that skilled and have forgotten most of it.
I enjoy coding when I know what I'm trying to achieve, and understand the coding at the moment (since coding has to be relearned all the time for me and be somewhat fresh in memory )

So, how powerful are the inbuilt modules? Can I build a completely unique synth from the ground up using just the modules, or is Ruby something I have to learn in order to achieve my goals? Is their any guides/tutorials that you would recommend that would teach me how to use these modules?

I'm a complete newbie and built this https://www.kvraudio.com/product/saguaro-one-by-saguaro-one
Have been tinkering with is now and then since spring/summer, when I started playing around with FS.

Having owned some hardware synth for a long time I built it to learn a bIt about synths. Just for fun.
The plugin is hardly unique in sound and is more of a wonky "example synth" on steroids. But as reference It could have been made "entirely" with inbuilt (toolbox) prims and modules if needed. It does feature alot of alterations using even more toolbox prims though...
It did however end up full of MVs ASM modules he has kindly shared
Alot due to the fact I made mistakes, and overdid it a little bit in respect to my initial synth structure (the amount if connections) and had to resort to optimized modules.
I recently changed my mind in regards to the structure and gained back alot of cpu performance by improving it.

Can I build a completely unique synth from the ground up using just the modules

Yes.

But if your ambitions are to create multiple plugins "and" compete with other serious plugins in sound quality or "fidelity" and versatility you have a real challenge on your hands. You will likely need to learn some DSP and how audio and audio processing works. Math.
Otherwise you end up with something like my synth... playful and maybe unique (for good or bad) in appearance but nothing out of the ordinary in sound. Even if i'm personally pretty satisfied with it... in respect to the level of ambition and effort put into it. Which was mostly to enjoy myself and create a synth plugin that I can continue tinkering with when I feel the urge...

I'll keep updating my synth for a time... that's why I'm still lurking around the forum to check if there are some solutions to issues I still have with my plugin.

FS is a good learning and prototype enviroment...
But I kind of feel that there is a lack of tutorials. On the other hand, if you want to dive into the rabbit hole you can maybe look at for example Spogg's and K Browns .fsm files?
I rarely undestand much looking inside these but some solutions would probably aim you in the right direction if you know that you're trying to achieve...

Well, this is my experience and perception of all the FS stuff. Other people likely have their own view...

The math behind audio and audio processing is a good thing to try and learn I believe... if your ambitions are high.

Warkauze wrote:... I am having trouble opening some flowstone projects. When opening, I get an error that says "Flowstone requires a CPU that supports SSE instructions." This only happens with some flowstone projects.

Wow, this is the very first time I’ve heard of this!

I’m far from being an expert on CPUs and stuff but I thought all modern CPUs support SSE and SSE 2 instruction sets and have for a long time. The export dialogue has the option to support SSE and I always leave it ticked because it’s essential for just about everything to work. I’m puzzled! What CPU are you using?

Hopefully someone else can ask more relevant questions and offer advice...

R&R wrote:... I kind of feel that there is a lack of tutorials ...

I’ve heard this said before and I agree.

One thing you can do is search for tutorial and you’ll currently get 26 pages of hits. If you sort through these there’s some good stuff to be found about various topics.

Might it be that Warkauze is trying to open files made in a Flowstone 3.09beta?

Warkauze can you point to any .fsm project file here at the forum that produce error?

You can also check if other software is able to recognize support for SSE by your particular CPU.
For example, here is CPUID: https://www.cpuid.com/downloads/cpu-z/cpu-z_2.03-en.exe
It will show support beside "instructions" when you run this utility.

Are you able to open these projects that produce errors at all? or does Flowstone crash?

One thing you can do is search for tutorial and you’ll currently get 26 pages of hits. If you sort through these there’s some good stuff to be found about various topics.

I agree there's alot of good stuff to read and learn from. Unfortunately not in a skill-based order

This is likely what Warkauze encountered:



It also get it when I try to open some .fsm files. Atleast in the FS version i'm currently using (FS3.081).
The same files usually seem to work fine in FS4 so likely they are FS4 (3.09beta) files. But they might not be. I don't know.

Here is an example (symmetryknob) of a shared .fsm that will envoke SSE dialog etc and crash my FS3.081...

http://www.dsprobotics.com/support/viewtopic.php?t=53302

I tried that and I don’t get the actual SSE message, just a warning that it’s made with a newer version of FS, but it’s probably because I use 3.06 and have done for some years now.
But I agree that’s what he’s seeing. I’ve added a moderator comment to the post for the knob.