I’ve done my concept from within developers way of thinking so i’m kinda hope plugin developers would cut in the ideas of needs and suggestions.
It’s a general concept (not renoise specific, however gives a clear idea how tracker-specific things should be translated between plug and tracker)
don’t know … should planning an API start with different function examples on a wiki? i’m no c++ coder but my AS or PHP projects starting most time with making an overall draft about features, possibilities of realization and so on …
Well, the benefit of a wiki is the page is dynamicly changable enough to do whatever one pleases.
It’s really excellent for brainstorming.
That’s why I’ve put it there because i merely use it as a sketchboard than really a planning tool.
So i put down what came to my mind and the reason i did it that way is to be sure that i don’t end up loosing ideas that might have been fruitfull but can’t remember anymore what it was all about.
When really planning, i would use a different tool and for sure not use a public wiki page.
It would maybe even take out some work for the GUI and keyboard-events done in Renoise.
However there is a risk that the API becomes the program.
It looks like Traktion 2 is lots of this idea. (They just knotted the API calling routines together to make it do all the processing)
In that matter:I may be able to program a composing tool too
But it however defines a general controlling API and does however not setup specific handling and transferring of pattern effect commands and of those sort.
I don’t really mean to bump an old thread, (actually, I DO mean to bump an old thread). but I was just talking to a friend online about this. +1, +1, +1000. One of the best things about Buzz was the machines created by people. If development ever gets as active as Buzz machine support, I could see it competing with Steinberg’s own VST standard. (Considering if it stays open and maybe maybe even gets support from other, non-tracker programs)
edit: I guess what I am trying to say is, what ever happened to this?
I dunno. I’d rather have a tutorial on how to code a simple VST effect/instrument (something like generating a sinus wave and halving the volume etc.) using a free compiler… I mean, wouldn’t Buzz for example be imaginable as using VST’s instead of Buzz machines? I really don’t see the fundamental difference?
A scripting language for instruments/effects with integrated compiler on the other hand… (would prolly be possible inside a VST )
I remember taktik one said this in a thread: "The VST API is ugly and limitating. The only good thing about it, is that everyone usues it. Its based completly on MIDI and tries to emulate even the MIDI hardwares limitations. "
So I guess a new Renoise API still can be something really good
Dumb question but will the plugins made with the API be like the pattern commands or would it be like the builtin SFX (EQ5,mpReverb…) or like the metadevices.
They would have to translate the commands supplied to their own commands.
The API design is actually a basic idea to crosstranslate modules between various trackers.
This would scrap the need for a tracker developer to implement import-support for various formats and allows possible communication between trackers if they are inserted as plugin.
But this is still just an idea, none of this is live.
Did you read it through? I think the topic is closed for good and for a good reason. If you want to know why then read the topic through. I would rather see this new tracker API as free and open and a ton of plugins for it.
Not that it would be happening anytime soon.
Let’s still not start Buzz-discussion here, this is a tracker plugin API discussion, although dead one.
