DSP Robotics Support

Let me start by saying I am completely in love with flowstone.
I am aware of their being an update on the horizon although it is impossible to know when that will come out.
Having said that , I wonder where the developers intend to take FS ?

It is pretty much obvious to me that if it will not support 64 bit , it will not move forward in terms of making commercial VST plugins. It is quite possible that even with 64 bit support it will never be as efficient as commercial plugins , I dont know enough about the inner working of FS to say about that ?

I have been looking at other development tools , Blue Cat's Plug'n Script , Juce,WDL-Ol - and some other stuff, I did find another graphic VST tool, but it feels like crap.

What FS has above all these programs in my limited experience is the wealth of assets , ease of entry and use.
Not knowing where the program is headed is kind of unfair to paying users in my opinion , I am not complaining , just stating a fact , I for one am not sure if I should spend more time on it unless I know what the future holds.

For example , if it is already decided that it will not move to 64 bit support ..ever, I feel like I should move on.
I dont know if it is financially viable for the devs to push forward with FS , as it stands the user base it not huge, so I do understand if there is simply not a financial incentive to take this further.
Having said that , I am convinced that if it were to move forward with 64 bit support the use base would grow fast .

What does everyone think ?
Is there official word on where FS is headed ?
Would it make sense for me to move to another tool ?
Is it viable to make commercial plugins with FS if it were 64 bit capable or is it always going to be more cpu and mem hungry than other plugins made in juce and the like ?

My first reaction to this post is that cpu usage has nothing to do with commercial or not commercial plugins. It has to do with optimization. You can indeed make very efficient plugins in flowstone if you learn to program in assembly and use all the optimization tricks in the book. Its a hard thing to learn but once you do the difference is night and day. These graphical VST plugin makers have a bad reputation because kids come, connect some things then sell the plugin and thats all they do. Of course it will use a lot more cpu. There are commercial plugin as well which are a cpu hog.

Regarding 64 bit, I have confidence that eventually it will come. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow but it will come. The flowstone developers are not stupid, they created this amazing application which proves they have high enough IQ to know that 32 bit is slowly fading out and if they want to grow it will eventually have to go 64 bit. Multi platform, i.e. Mac version, is a different thing, but 64 bit PC is not an impossible thing to achieve.

lalalandsynth wrote:
...I for one am not sure if I should spend more time on it unless I know what the future holds.

Would it make sense for me to move to another tool ?

These comments lead me to ask this question: Do you want to make commercial plugins?

I get the feeling that this is your ultimate goal, in which case I can see the source of your angst about 64 bit and so forth. Otherwise, if it's just a hobby and interest, as it is for me, I see no need to fret about it. What we have right now is simply amazing, to me at least. After nearly 3 years I feel I've only explored a fraction of possibilities and, even if DSPR ceases to exist, there's so much depth and range to the program to keep me occupied for ages. I too have looked at other similar apps and nothing comes close in my opinion.

We've been promised an announcement on 64 bit after the next version is released. This next version's test alpha seems really good to me, so I don't think it'll be too far off. The CPU savings on exports is very impressive and there'll be a vastly extended range of prims and code to play with. I know no more than that at this stage.

Up to you!

Cheers

Spogg

@adam , that is good to know , if the optimization can be learned and implemented then I could definitly do that with time and effort. Yes, it would make sense that they aim for 64 bit , I just wonder if it makes sense for them financially seeing that the user base is not that large at the moment.

I am sure we have all seen great ideas get lost due to financial issues or just because they do not take off for one reason or another. Let's face it , the last version was 2015. I wonder if we can do anything to inspire the devs to take this step that is needed to move forward.

As to whether 64 bit will come , I feel that the devs should inform us users of their plans instead of keeping us guessing, now obviously they might have stated their stance on this and I have missed it? I personally am at the point where I want to know if I am wasting my time accruing skills in FS if my end goal is to be able to make commercial plugins.

I feel that it would be a strong move for DSPR to push out a 64 bit version and maybe even an asset store.
This would entice new users and ease their entry as well as encouraging the veterans to develop more stuff that could be monetised in an asset store, this could make money for DSPR and its users . This for example is a major factor for something like Unity and how programs in that field compete - asset stores with ready made modules. Just a thought.
As far as I can tell , a lot of people want to make VST´s but not everyone can handle the steep learning curve that comes with Juce and C++. I must say , after trying a few of these programs I have come to realise just how insanely cool FS is.

I also think we would need to see some 64 bit commercially viable plugins out there , made in FS , properly made, and properly working and from there the user base would grow ....fast , in my opinion.

@Spogg.

Yes, I run a vintage synth repair shop , have been a musician for 20 years so I feel like I can add something to the endless supply of VST programs. I know its a crowded market but I think I have some cool ideas.
I would love to be able to just keep on getting more FS skills instead of having to move to something like Juce.
Btw, I have been trying to learn Juce and I am sure I could get something going there with time , but nothing I have tried so far comes close to FS.

The devs could certainly pick up the excitment level if they announced their plans ...especially if their plans included a 64 bit version. Don't get me wrong ,,I am still excited about the next upgrade

I don't think that FS is particularly CPU hungry. We have demonstrated a convolution reverb.

martinvicanek wrote:I don't think that FS is particularly CPU hungry. We have demonstrated a convolution reverb.

When a new user first starts with Flowstone they see a load of primitives and start to experiment and build stuff and it's great fun. But the VST they export uses lots of CPU, as I found out with my first project.

I wasn't even aware of the notion of optimisation until tulamide pointed out my high CPU issue. Thanks mainly to you Martin, plus a few others from the past, I now have a tooolbox with many optimised modules written in Assembler and I make extensive use of these rather than the prims. The savings can be dramatic, sometimes using only 10% of the stock stuff. Your expertise has indeed proved that the limitations of the basic Flowstone can be overcome, but not easily: how many users can get fluent in Assembler? Not me.

My point is that DSPR could make such optimised modules available from the outset, so you could choose from a wavetable sine osc or one like yours for example. I think Maik is going in this direction with the next version, but I'm not sure how far. It would be a good selling point for new users if they could make CPU efficient projects from the very start. Or even, as per LLsynth, they were available as separate assets from DSPR.

Cheers

Spogg

Any word on when the update will be released?