ModPlug Central

Im curious to all your opinions. We're setting up a new site and everything, so a download page will have to be constructed aswell. Would it be a good idea to support the older version too? or only the newest OS version?

No hard feelings towards Olivier, as he did a tremendous job there, but its outdated. Im curious if there are any people that are actually still downloading the old version for any reason...

Please also leave a post why yes, or why no.

"pro 1.16" because there are always people who use their programmes for years without updating because they don't want to

and if for some reason (e.g. HDD crash) their version gets lost they won't have any possibility to get it back

there's always stubborn people, you know ;)

Quote from: "BooT-SectoR-ViruZ""pro 1.16" because there are always people who use their programmes for years without updating because they don't want to

and if for some reason (e.g. HDD crash) their version gets lost they won't have any possibility to get it back

there's always stubborn people, you know ;)

But i want your opinion. Not theirs...

well i don't need 1.16 anymore

modplug is now much better, why look to much back to what we had. Better to dream of what can come in the future

Can't  we put a compiled 1.16 on Sourceforge as well?

As for me I'm using 1.17 RC2, but I've seen a lot of modders who were unsatisfied with its unstability/bugs (mostly connected with VST) and returned to 1.16 or Impulse (i.e. returned to sample-based tracking, strange but true). I think that the idea of putting compiled MPT 1.16 on SourceForge file respository and making it available for download any time is the best choice.

Quote from: "Trustmaster"I've seen a lot of modders who were unsatisfied with its unstability/bugs

If you see them again tell them to report the bugs instead. ;)

Just focus on gettin the current version in good working order. I love VSTI's and although it does run them they still have problems. If you add a vst effect to vsti channel it seems to have no effect, and the same with the channel volume.

Quote from: "hematurge"If you add a vst effect to vsti channel it seems to have no effect, and the same with the channel volume.

not sure what you mean by a 'vsti channel', but you can chain a vst effect to a vsti (just like you would one effect to another, using the 'output to' drop down box), and it will apply that effect to the vsti's output.
as for the channel volume, well it can be handled by using zxx macros (plugin wet/dry ratio controls the vsti volume since there is no 'dry' signal). also, individual note volumes work for vsti's that support this, and the global volume is applied to vsti's as well.


as for the actual topic, i occasionally use the old version to compare for a bug, but i dont ever use it for tracking anymore.  still, i think its a good idea to at least have a download link somewhere...

Quote from: "Snu"not sure what you mean by a 'vsti channel'

i should have been more clear on what i meant. i mean a channel that has the vsti audio tracked in it. i.e. the channel where the melody (produced by a softsynth for instance) notes are tracked. also im gonna try what you said, i may have overlooked it (probly).

EDIT: yeah i overlooked the "output to" area. now all is good. i can work around the channel volume issue with macros and othe plugins thanks Snu.

Quote from: "hematurge"

Quote from: "Snu"not sure what you mean by a 'vsti channel'

i should have been more clear on what i meant. i mean a channel that has the vsti audio tracked in it. i.e. the channel where the melody (produced by a softsynth for instance) notes are tracked. also im gonna try what you said, i may have overlooked it (probly).

Snu's suggestions are the way to go. The problem with applying channel plugins to VSTis is the following: what do we do if you play your VSTi simultaneously on a channel with a VST effect and a channel without a VST effect? We cannot split the output of the VSTi, since we recieve the output as a single "rendered" stream... so we cannot forward "some notes" to the effect and "some notes" to the master output.

hmm... isn't there a way to simply set pattern-effects to a higher priority than the VST(i) so that they become s.th. like "channel master effect"?

Quotewhat do we do if you play your VSTi simultaneously on a channel with a VST effect and a channel without a VST effect

isn't that impossible? i mean if you want to put a VST effect on a VSTi you've got to assign the effect to that VSTi in the effect-settings

so people simply got to use the same instrument on different effect slots...
...btw: many VSTi don't support multiple voices at the same time

or did i get s.th. wrong?

P.S.: i'd still love an "assign effect #X to instrument/channel" "unassign effect #X to instrument/channel" command  :D

Quote from: "BooT-SectoR-ViruZ"hmm... isn't there a way to simply set pattern-effects to a higher priority than the VST(i) so that they become s.th. like "channel master effect"?

Same problem remains.. what do you do if you apply say a vibrato effect on one channel, whilst the VSTi is playing on that channel and another channel with no vibrato effect? You can't simply manipulate the audio stream as you do with samples. So a kind of solution is to convert pattern effects to their midi equivalent (if possible), which I have already done with pitch bends (so IT effects Exx and Fxx send pitch bend MIDI commands if applied on VSTis). Others will follow.

Quote

Quotewhat do we do if you play your VSTi simultaneously on a channel with a VST effect and a channel without a VST effect

isn't that impossible? i mean if you want to put a VST effect on a VSTi you've got to assign the effect to that VSTi in the effect-settings

so people simply got to use the same instrument on different effect slots...

Yes, exactly. That was precisely my point. :D

Quote...btw: many VSTi don't support multiple voices at the same time

Indeed. My example is concerned with polyphonic VSTs.

QuoteP.S.: i'd still love an "assign effect #X to instrument/channel" "unassign effect #X to instrument/channel" command

Dynamic stream rerouting is a nice idea, so long as you are aware (and I think you are) of the limitations imposed by the fact that we can't send multiple simultaneous notes played on the same VSTi instance to separate effect plugins, unless the VSTi is specifically designed to have multiple outputs.

Quote from: "rewbs"So a kind of solution is to convert pattern effects to their midi equivalent (if possible), which I have already done with pitch bends (so IT effects Exx and Fxx send pitch bend MIDI commands if applied on VSTis). Others will follow.

YOU'RE MY HERO!!!
(http://core.cuntdown.com/images/smiles/111_disco.gif)
please become the father of my children!

QuoteDynamic stream rerouting is a nice idea, so long as you are aware (and I think you are) of the limitations imposed by the fact that we can't send multiple simultaneous notes played on the same VSTi instance to separate effect plugins, unless the VSTi is specifically designed to have multiple outputs.

wouldn't bother me when implemented
:D

I have not updated beacuse it's still labeled RC (planned to try an update when it was "really" released). Are you saying that there is no reason to hang on to the old version?

I think we shouldnt support the old version, because if they have a problem with the old version, everyone's answer would be "upgrade to RC2"

Hello, I registered to tell people that I definately want support for the old version until the new version supports ALL of the same kinds of features and behavior (save for bugs) to expect from the old version.  Several issues with the new MPT really get on my nerves when I'm trying to work with it, and it makes me resort back to the old version when I'm doing anything "serious" because I don't want these distractions to hinder my inspiration.

For example, OpenMPT has remapped a bunch of keys from the old version by default which were more than a little annoying for me to put back into place that approximates it.  Despite that, some features still just don't "work the same" in the new version.  Stuff like this:

Note Off and Note Cut events place an instrument number beside them (argh!).

When a note is deleted, its instrument number stays behind.  This may be useful in very rare instances when note "popping" is useful, but unfortunately different playback engines (xmplay for example!) ignore this as a "pop" in formats like IT!  

Default keys once again were mapped all weird and stuff.  If I remember right, I had to remap pgUp/pgDn to do a 4 note skip again.  I think the default was set at a 2 note skip.


Now this may all seem nitpicky and stuff, but I was all ready to dive into OpenMPT until this sort of happened, and combined with the (as of yet) still developing support for VST's  (I can't adjust note volume in patterns, effects support is weird and has a completely different process between samples and VST's, and the way they're mapped isn't quite intuitive yet), I've had to resort to two copies of MPT, one for VST music experiments, and one for all the traditional stuff.  Dropping support for the old version should only occur after guys like me no longer HAVE to keep an older version around just to get stuff done the way they like it.

This may happen upon some grandiose "stable" 1.0 type release maybe?  :3


Oh and P.S.  I LOVE YOU GUYS for even TRYING to add VST support to MPT!  Ever since development on the old version froze, this was my most wanted feature ever.  I can't stand any other music programs!  MPT ALL THE WAY

Quote from: "nobuyuki"Note Off and Note Cut events place an instrument number beside them (argh!).

In the keyboard setup (patern editor - note column), just map Note Off (don't remember instrument) and Note Cut (don't remember instrument) to your keys of choice instead of the OpenMPT style way of doing things.

QuoteWhen a note is deleted, its instrument number stays behind.  This may be useful in very rare instances when note "popping" is useful, but unfortunately different playback engines (xmplay for example!) ignore this as a "pop" in formats like IT!  

This is another keyboard setup issue, just map delete to "Clear field (IT Style) instead of the normal "clear field" (Pattern Editor - General)

QuoteDefault keys once again were mapped all weird and stuff.  If I remember right, I had to remap pgUp/pgDn to do a 4 note skip again.  I think the default was set at a 2 note skip.

You can choose to map page up/down to either use jump by measure or beat, (you set measure/beat in the song properties) or navigate up/down by spacing (which you set in the pattern editor).

I'm sure you'll find that the new pattern editor features (such as visualize effect, mix paste, grow/shrink selection, improved undo and some which escapes me at the moment as well as the incredibly flexible keyboard setup will make your tracking experience even more efficient than the old MPT, even when you don't use plugins.

It's 4 am here now so I might as well apologize for any broken words/grammar.

Thanks Guest. :)
nobuyuki, as pointed out above, most of your worries are just configuration issues. One extra tip is that you can make the highlights (and the jump by... commands) adhere to a fixed number of rows for all tracks rather than the track's own time sig properties by explicitly specifying the pattern highlight intervals in the Colour settings dialog.

Quoteeffects support is weird and has a completely different process between samples and VST's, and the way they're mapped isn't quite intuitive yet

I think I'm aware of the issues you are aluding to, but could you be more specific so I can confirm I have them covered (at least mentally)? Bear in mind that not all pattern effects will ever work exactly as with samples for several reasons, for example we cannot split simultaneous notes from the output of a polyphonic VSTi.

I must admit that I've used MPT and OMPT separatly for a looooong time (until beginning of this year actually). This was mainly due to OMPT's instability with some VST's I'm regularly using... not to mention the time it took me to move from pure "sample tracking" to VSTI usage (hard to teach new tricks to an old dog  :oops: )...

I know of alot of people still using the original MPT. Mainly because it's a bit less complicated to work with (e.g. there are less options and features to care about). But since RC2, most of them are beginning to slowly migrate to OMPT. I think that most people are scared to move on to OMPT because of a lack of documentation for the new features or modifications which are appearing with each new build. That's clearly not the case with MPT which is fairly well documented :)

Offering both versions would be probably a good idea. MPT is still one (if not THE) best soundtrackers to get started and I think newcomers might be less scared to start working with MPT, knowing that they'll be able to move to the more advanced version whenever they feel ready to.

My two cents ;)

Quote from: "goor00"Offering both versions would be probably a good idea. MPT is still one (if not THE) best soundtrackers to get started and I think newcomers might be less scared to start working with MPT, knowing that they'll be able to move to the more advanced version whenever they feel ready to.

an interesting idea... sortof a mpt lite.
this is something im afraid of, mpt getting so complex that the learning curve ends up being like buzz...
two versions would be a way to combat this, as long as we make this theory well known on the download page so people can know what they are getting in to.

In my opinion keeping original mpt is valid as long as full documentation for Ompt is ready. As we can see here moving to the newer versions of mpt is time to time confusing even for a longtime users of the original version. Now imagine what happens when complete newbes see the ompt. It is quite scaring for them. For us ? trackers? addicts ? trackers are intuitive but for ?frootytootie loops? generation? for sure not (ok, that?s just my opinion :-)). Without proper documentation they are more likely to resign from using it than to sit and learn everything by themselves. Old mpt is easy and well documented so it?s easier to start with.
So for me the good manual should be a priority right now (of course besides the development of the software). That?s just my point of view.

Best,
D.

I use the old version. I havent been here in a while (years), and this site has changed dramatically since then. I came looking for plugins/updates/music, but, I guess that isnt here anymore. I use the old version because it does everything I want it to, and I never have seen any bugs.

I think you should keep the old files up for sure. Even if you say that there will be limited support.

I will say I am glad that development is being done on this program. I have always like these formats because of their effeciency and size.

The old versions are already available at the read-only download section of this forum.
From a historical point of view they indeed should be there anyway, I think. Calling 1.16 a 'Lite' version is a nice concept. I don't use Vst's, so I have no opinion about it, but besides that, RC2 of OMPT has offered
me many great improvements. But, of course, is therefore a bit more complicated than 1.16.

But so far this is only the Editor-issue. There is also the Player . . .
Very handy. No install needed. A quick playback, if assigned, with some unique options.
There is also the browser-plugin for a streaming playback (still working with Firefox on XP).

hmmmmm so where HAS olivier gone to?

As far as I know, his site is  here  (http://pweb.jps.net/~olivierl/)

Yes please support it, or at least keep it available for download. I didn't move to OpenMPT yet because I'm really comfortable with the old keyboard layout and the OMPT keyboard layout is awkward in comparison, and the interface has a different feel to it. The second most important issue is that it doesn't run as well on my PC, which is an older machine. Speaking of older versions, is there a place to get v1.0, or v1.00a? My cousin and I started using MPT in 1997, and it would be interesting to see again.  8)

2gyromatical
I have v1.06, but unfortunately I'm in the middle of a house-change, so the cdrom is somewhere in a carton box at the moment. But I will keep your request in mind. So I will publish it later.

Relax about this topic. Apart of the decision of MPC to support the old version or not, I will, as I did before finding the pre-crash MPC-forum, have available the last ver of MPT, plus player and plugin  here  (http://www.louigiverona.com/webarchive/samzen/links.html#mods)

I know it's been more than a month since the last post, but I would agree with nobuyuki and others who suggest that losing some of the quirks that MPT had actually make OpenMPT feel rather counterintuitive for those who are used to it. (Spent quite a bit of time remapping the keys to some approximation of IT-style to work with my Dvorak keyboard...)

Perhaps a switch for the old MPT-style behavior and quirks (with VK_*, maybe?) and the new OpenMPT behavior, if not out-of-the-box? (Little things are rather stifling... esp. when they're not configurable, like OpenMPT clearing the instrument value when placing a note, when Main instrument is 'none'...)

Don't get me wrong, though: Like many have said, MPT really needs the update. (Runs on NT 4, after grabbing MSIMG32.DLL from online...).

if anyone has the version without vst support and altered ressonance filters, i would very like to grap that. Some of my old songs sound different with the new version..

Quote from: "Rakib"if anyone has the version without vst support and altered ressonance filters, i would very like to grap that. Some of my old songs sound different with the new version..

Have you tried toggling the extended filter range in the song properties?