Hey Rewbs, not that there's any rush, but I'm just curious. Are you currently working on any new major features for the next RC? And if so, could you give us an idea of what to expect and maybe an approximate time frame for a release date? Just want to get a sense of what's in store for MPT in the near future.
Quote from: "Diamond"Hey Rewbs, not that there's any rush, but I'm just curious. Are you currently working on any new major features for the next RC? And if so, could you give us an idea of what to expect and maybe an approximate time frame for a release date? Just want to get a sense of what's in store for MPT in the near future.
agreed. we want to know;)
I have written very little code for OpenMPT over the past few months. My current sandbox build has a few in-progress bug fixes and nothing more. However, I do have some (old) incomplete code for improved VST param control from the patterns (i.e. a replacement for macros) and for better routing between plugins. Both of these had put on hold while waiting for the new fileformat to become a reality... on which there hasn't been much progress. I do not have a date for the next RC.
Sorry, this probably isn't what you wanted to hear. :)
So to put the content in the right sentence:
MPT In the near future: Nothing changes :nuts: :lol:
Great, this means there is plenty of room for suggestions!
i think it means more at we have to find others that can help rewbs to keep up the development of this superb software. I hope someday MPT can one day can compete with renoise compare to functions.
vst and how many built in effects in once.
Nah, it simply means that Rewbs has a life ;)
He is currently busy, but that doesn't mean he will be occupied for the rest of his life. I'm sure that if that would've been the case, he would've said so in the first place.
Just give him some time to get things sorted out and gain some more free time. MPT is a great piece of software that with the latest beta build is quite stable. (Stable enough to not crash at my end, and most others either cus I don't see bug reports)
Rewbs probably will keep the bug support online while he is busy which means that any serious bug will be looked into and fixed where possible.
And don't forget, we also have Relabsoluness.
I do agree that getting more developers involved would definitely be a good thing. More developers would mean new features and would take some of the weight off of Rewbs' shoulders. Is there any place where we could put out a call for people with the necessary programming skills and who might be interested? Maybe on SourceForge?
Before doing so, I'd like to have Rewbs's confirmation.
He's the best person to decide if its better or worse at this time to have an additional programmer in the team.
Initially I'd be checking in any patches myself from new developers, but after a few good patches they'd get full commit rights to the code. So it wouldn't necessarily be much work for me once they know their way around. I'm always happy answer questions about the code as best as I can and help out with bugs. Relabsoluness might be able to help show new devvers around too.
The main problem with getting devvers working on OpenMPT is that the codebase is old. This means it is difficult to work with due to cruft, and it is not exciting for devvers who want to be playing with new technology, modern techniques etc... Consequently most devvers look at the code and want to redesign from scratch rather than hack away - which is the perfect recipe for vapourware and devvers who disappear into thin air after a few emails about UML diagrams. :) IMHO people who would stay on and make significant contributions would also be avid users and fans of MPT, rather than misc people who know C++. With this in mind, any contributions are welcome so feel free to ask around for help.
what is the language and what is required for program for MPT, maybe I can request for programmers at a another forum.
Quote from: "Rakib"what is the language and what is required for program for MPT, maybe I can request for programmers at a another forum.
I would say requirements are (in order of importance):
. Visual Studio .NET 2003.
. Substantial experience in the use of MPT (and preferably OpenMPT too :) ).
. Some knowledge of C/C++. There's some ASM too in the low level mixing routines but you don't necessarily need to touch it (I haven't).
. Some knowledge of MFC.
. Experience with Subversion and developing on Sourceforge would be cool too.
if it didnt require visual studio, id at least try to help out, unfortunately i dont have a copy... that and i suck at programming. :p
Quote from: "rewbs"and for better routing between plugins.
Yeah! Hope this is the long-awaited modular system ;)
The visual studio requirement indeed seems quite an obstacle. Recently as I examined things a bit hoping that I would find a way to get one, the new VS2005 standard edition had a price over 300 ?, which doesn't seem that nice.
Quote from: "rewbs"...and devvers who disappear into thin air after a few emails about UML diagrams. :)
sigh
Quote from: "Relabsoluness"The visual studio requirement indeed seems quite an obstacle.
I agree, and I'm not sure what we need to do to eliminate this dependency. My guess is remove MFC dependency and some of the ASM. In other words, lots of work. :) I could be wrong though.. it would be cool if we could figure out how to get it to build is VS2k5 Express.
Removing the dependency on MFC all together is probably gonna be difficult but it shouldn't impossible...
wxWidgets (http://wxwidgets.org) is one alternative which is fairly feature complete and well documented. And there's actually an article here (http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/library/l-mfc/?n-l-4182) about porting MFC applications to wxWidgets...
The assembler shouldn't be that big a deal... There are at least a couple of free assemblers out there, including the one in gcc...
I would really like to see OpenMPT being freed from Visual Studio and MFC and moved to a completely free and open source development environment... It would make it alot easier for others to contribute...
Cygwin (http://cygwin.com) would actually be one such possibility as it provides most of the normal (on Unix platforms anyway) GNU'ish development tools... Using Cygwin as a dev. platform will also make it easier if porting to Linux/Unix is ever seriously considered. And it's even possible to build native Win32 applications under Cygwin that don't require anything Cygwin stuff to run...
Quote from: "yrk"I would really like to see OpenMPT being freed from Visual Studio and MFC and moved to a completely free and open source development environment... It would make it alot easier for others to contribute...
Free tools indeed would be nice, but on the other hand I must admit that compared e.g. to devcpp and Code::blocks, I have found visual studio so much nicer to work with simply due to certain 'environment matters', like that 'goto definition'-function really works and such.
About using VS2k5 express: I tried to 'tune' it sometime ago, and after installing directx and platform sdk, I got to a point that source of 1.16 seemed to compile all the way until linking, and even some files of the latest code compile at least after removing functions that were not available in MFC 6.0 or something like that. Well, not much, but better than nothing :)