Hello folks, i'm back!
I've compared BeRoTracker with ModPlug and the Oscar goes to ... ;)
Using the same track with the same settings and the same plugins:
http://www.uploadyourfiles.de/028bc9316a570b1912945a881e772f8e/2l53e/Download.html
ModPlug: Sounds fat and clear as always.
BeRoTracker: Dry sound, no dynamic, no effect on the claps(?), low resampling,
(just listen to the snare at 00:21 - sounds like a bad mp3-encoding eh? But it isn't. As .wav it sounds the same.)
Also i must admit, that ModPlug runs fast at Win98 and a P2!
So there is no reason to replace ModPlug with BeRoTracker,
especially if Rewbs add in the near future this modular effect stuff.
PS: The tested track is an old one from ~2001, so don't blaspheme me please ;)
i dont know if any other trackers use ASIO, because my first(and the last also) tracker from the beginning till now is MPT :))
i like mpt because it maintaines ASIO :))
and sound is really nice, deep & clean as you've said. i simply agree with you
THen compare http://www.berotracker.de/resampling/BeRoTracker.png with http://www.berotracker.de/resampling/ModPlug.png . BeRoTracker has a better resampling engine, MPT has more resampling aliasing than BRT . you must select on the wave export dialog the right resampling method and resolution (for example FastSINC256 at 32-bit IEEE Floating Point, where you don't lose any quality at the down mixing for example from 32-bit to 16-bit and where then it will get normalized, you did lost there a lot of quality (because the Normalizing is "AFTER" the downmixing). Please use the Export function with 32-bit IEEE resolution, if you do want perfect quality, this way will give you still the best results :) )
Short: BeRoTracker works internally only with 32-bit IEEE Floating Point Sample values. You must set only the settings right for a perfect soundoutput quality.
P.S. Here the module http://www.berotracker.de/resampling/15kHz_60bpm.xm for to testing yourself. But please, you do it with the right way :)
edit: And BeRoTracker (the ImpulseTracker GUI variant) supports ASIO
Poser...!
You're really want to... -sorry, let me repeat it in order to get it right- compare MODPLUGTRACKER to BEROTRACKER?
Please, use the correct interpolation before exporting - BeRoTracker features FSINC512 (soon 1024) interpolation that is just uncomparable to anything else out there... (And I code my own music software myself - //www.BUZZle.de - So: I got no reason to prefer my contestants :wink: )
Maybe the ImpT-look is not everyone's darling, but technically there's no tracker available with quality comparible to BeRo-Tracker - Got your Spectrum set up correctly? 'cause I've seen different BeRo-Benchmarks.... honestly...)
So don't judge too early - get your setup right! :idea:
Quote from: "hotkey"And I code my own music software myself - //www.BUZZle.de - So: I got no reason to prefer my contestants :wink:
"BeRo and I are working out how to grant a perfect cooperation of BeRo Tracker and BUZZle * BeRo Tracker (ImpulseTracker's "successor") is, like BUZZle, coded in FreePascal * So let's hope for a seemless integration of the BTP SDK!" doesn't sound like very fierce competition... ;)
Quote from: "hotkey"Maybe the ImpT-look is not everyone's darling, but technically there's no tracker available with quality comparible to BeRo-Tracker
I would say Aodix is. ;)
But don't get me wrong, I welcome Bero Tracker and Buzzle, the more the merrier. I wish you'd consider making your software open source tho, or even better; help out with MPT. :D
BeRoTracker will become a commerical product. The actual versions are free to use but currently only alpha/beta test builds to get some user feedbacks (Bugreporting etc.). ModPlug vs. BeRoTracker is like comparing a good VW car (Modplug) to a porsche or ferrari (BeRoTracker). Two trackers with different goals, userbase and concepts. BRT has Automations, full MIDI implementation, a modular route system, "native" support for 24 and 32 bit samples, many filtertypes, perfect resampler (for whose you must set the right settings to get a good result), drum patterns, extended patterns, and a inoffical "native" multichannels (not only stereo) support (up to 16), 32-bit IEEE floating point mixing engine and so on.
The cooperation between Buzzle and BeRoTracker is not a fusion but instead more a kind of information and technology sharing (e.g. BTP plugin spec). Also Buzzle will stay freeware.
P.S. http://www.vectronix.org/wbb/archive/index.php?t-1105.html
@beRo:
If you really want to release your tracker als "commercial" product you
have a lot of work to do! I thought BeRoTracker should be free furthermore
and another sequencer-version of it should go commercial?
The actual version is unstable, crashes on loading and is slowly (not
only while playing, even just the buildup of the gui (gadgets a.s.o.)).
Perhaps FreePascal is the wrong programming language for this...
Quote from: "beRo"ModPlug vs. BeRoTracker is like comparing a good VW
car (Modplug) to a porsche or ferrari (BeRoTracker).
Harhar! :lol: For me as musician it's uninteresting which engine works,
i just trust my own ears!!! I've testet some other settings (IEEE) but this
also don't satisfy me.
@Poser:
Sorry but you talk nothing but rubbish. So far I haven't seen any other other users (e.g. in the BRT forum) complaining about crashes or other unstable functions. So if you are really concerned then submit a detailed bug report or do some verifyable comparison. Otherwise just shut up.
btw: Are you kidding? You seem to care about good sound quality but in the same time you rely on windows 98 as operating system? Good laugh, really.
Do I sense an invasion of BeRo users over here? :o
Quote from: "Audio Honk"@Poser:
Sorry but you talk nothing but rubbish. So far I haven't seen any other other users (e.g. in the BRT forum) complaining about crashes or other unstable functions. So if you are really concerned then submit a detailed bug report or do some verifyable comparison. Otherwise just shut up.
btw: Are you kidding? You seem to care about good sound quality but in the same time you rely on windows 98 as operating system? Good laugh, really.
I talk no "rubbish", i tell the truth but you can't deal with criticism hm?
On my machine (win98, p2, 350 mhz) it loads only sometimes, crashes and
is slowly like hell. Do i need 3.0 ghz and xp to hear the "superb" sound of BeRo?
Quote from: "LPChip"Do I sense an invasion of BeRo users over here? :o
Yes, seems like that. They urgently need new users for their tracker/forum or something :-)
If they wanna start a war between MP and their BT they are wrong here.
The only thing annoying is that the author seems to be biheaded and arrogant like
"my program is the best and your's is shit!"...
Please come back to ground my dear!
Quote from: "Poser"f they wanna start a war between MP and their BT they are wrong here.
Uh, call me crazy, but you started this with the comparison between the two. But I don't want to get involved, I never liked playing favorites....
Quote from: "Poser"
On my machine (win98, p2, 350 mhz) it loads only sometimes, crashes and
is slowly like hell. Do i need 3.0 ghz and xp to hear the "superb" sound of BeRo?
You need for BRT a NT-based windows system or x86-Linux/x86-BSD with WINE, and at least 1 GHz.
Only 350 MHz for a music computer is really a joke, if you want work really professional today.
Aodix needs also the similiar minimal system requirements like BeRoTracker (see http://www.aodix.com/ ) .
@Poser:
I think you started the "war" which you are talking about.
IMHO it's just not fair to post biased blubber (and disguise it as a comparison) about a piece of software in a concurrent forum without giving the author any chance to give a statement or to clear things up. Submitting a bug report or posting it in the BRT forum would have been the right choice for both sides. But instead you chose to flame and now whine about the arrogance of the BRT author.
Quote from: "Squirrel Havoc"Uh, call me crazy, but you started this with the comparison between the two.
Yes you are right... but this comparison should only show,
that BeRoTracker sounds NOT better than ModPlug
(argued by BeRo himself many times).
But I'm of course too stupid to set his engine right harhar...
Quote from: "Audio Honk"@Poser:
I think you started the "war" which you are talking about.
IMHO it's just not fair to post biased blubber (and disguise it as a comparison) about a piece of software in a concurrent forum without giving the author any chance to give a statement or to clear things up. Submitting a bug report or posting it in the BRT forum would have been the right choice for both sides. But instead you chose to flame and now whine about the arrogance of the BRT author.
Harhar... BeRo himself has posted here many times how good his tracker is and that ModPlug has no chance (blablabla)...
But if his tracker is sooooo superb and wonderful, why he keep it needful to compare with such a "lame" tracker like ModPlug?
Whatever... he should be proud of his engine and the stuff (as well it sounds not better than others)...
@Poser:
AFAIK beRo never titled ModPlug as lame but instrad just pointed out that both trackers have a different area of application.
Now please stop acting like a complete idiot.
@Poser:
AFAIK beRo never titled ModPlug neither as lame nor as bad software but instead pointed out that both trackers have a different area of application.
Now please stop acting like a complete idiot.
Audio Honk = BeRo hm? ;)
Not my problem... but it's true, that BeRoTracker is NOT stable.
It crashes also on XP ( not only 98 ) just sometimes without doing special activities...
Ideal base to send bug reports ey? ;)
Nevermind, if you can deliver 2 tracks ( BeRo/ModPlug ) and the BeRo-version
of it sounds better, THEN we believe you first...
Quote from: "Poser"Nevermind, if you can deliver 2 tracks ( BeRo/ModPlug ) and the BeRo-version
of it sounds better, THEN we believe you first...
Pluralis Majestatis? :wink:
Quote from: "Poser"
But if his tracker is sooooo superb and wonderful, why he keep it needful to compare with such a "lame" tracker like ModPlug?
I've never said that MPT is lame. MPT und BRT are two different trackers with two different target usergroups. You simply ignore the fact of my spectrum analyze tests maybe because you don't understand them. Also there may be differences in your preferences of both trackers which can result in a wrong conclusion (maybe MPT has set a higher output level which can trick your ears). It's a bit like buying a new TV set. If you let yourself blend by a shiny, high-contrast, colourful picture without checking the specs..
@Poser:
No, I am not beRo but yes, I am a close friend of him.
Although I must admit that beRo's coding speed already served as base for various multi-personality speculations.
Quote from: "beRo"You simply ignore the fact of my spectrum analyze tests maybe because you don't understand them. Also there may be differences in your preferences of both trackers which can result in a wrong conclusion (maybe MPT has set a higher output level which can trick your ears).
Yes i've ignored them, because the spectrum is nice but my ears tell me something different...
Maybe the ModPlug-track is a little bit louder, but that's unimportant. Just set your attention
to the snareroll, the hihats and so on. Also the bassline is not the same, perhaps because
the resonance filter in the lowpass-instrument will be ignored by BeRoTracker.
I don't want to interupt this so called "war", or maybe I do...
There's no reason to make it personal. As this is a forum where you have the right to speak, please make sure its about the topic, and not beyond that (thus a personal level).
Im sure we all are old enough not to lower our levels to such from this point on.
You wanna know what's funny? This talk that MPT is better than BeRo made me want to check out BeRo, so I did. I think that's the opposite effect from what Poser was going for :) Of course, I can't compare the 2, BeRo has no audio output on my computer :(
Quote from: "Squirrel Havoc"BeRo has no audio output on my computer :(
You probably just need to setup the output device.
Quote from: "bero"can you take a short look at http://forum.openmpt.org/index.php?topic=226.0
maybe you also want to post your opinion
OK then... Technically there's no denying that:
. MPT is more mature and works better on old sytems
. BRT has some more modern features and mixes at higher precisions so theoretically provides better sound quality.
Considering sound quality is such a subjective issue, the best a developer can do is work towards theoretical quality and make things as confiruable as possible. I'm very happy Poser prefers the sound of his track on OpenMPT, but of course it's 1 track and 1 listener. I don't think people should be offended by his opinion no matter how he presents it.
I personally think BRT is a great piece of software. I'm sad it is closed source - best of luck with the commercial ventures.
Many features already present in BRT (and, let's not forget, in many other music production platforms too - BRT is great but not groundbreaking) will eventually makes their way into OpenMPT. But rest assured that everything you love about MPT will always remain available.
Quote from: "Squirrel Havoc"You wanna know what's funny? This talk that MPT is better than BeRo made me want to check out BeRo, so I did. I think that's the opposite effect from what Poser was going for :) Of course, I can't compare the 2, BeRo has no audio output on my computer :(
On this reason i also tested BeRoTracker and I was a little bit disappointed,
because the tracker don't keep the promises. Funny that this test cause
other users to try it too ;)
I've exported with MPT und BRT 3 Tracks now and encoded to OGGs with 192 kbps +/- (VBR).
The MPT OGGs are with the best settings exported, which MPT can, as resampling method: Polyphose FIR (this is beter thab the XMMS-Modplug WIndowedFIR algo, because Polyphsae FIR is an optimization of WindowedFIR (see Google) )
The BRT OGGs are with the third best resampling method (FastSINC256) exported, because FastSINC512 and 1024 are for me too slow for a fast export of these three tracks.
Here the link: http://bero.freqvibez.net/BeRoTracker/Tests/
I will tomorrow (or in some hours) make again 3 exports, but then with settings, that are for realtime use.
Hm why is the ModPlug-track not normalized? ;)
OGG: With this low volume of course we can't compare it :-)
Quote from: "Poser"Hm why is the ModPlug-track not normalized? ;)
OGG: With this low volume of course we can't compare it :-)
Because I've not found this option in the OpenMPT 1.17RC2 WAV export dialog. But you can export these track again with normalization.
As a hint: The Windows-look GUI is already in the deprecated state since some weeks, because they have too many problems. (See for example http://www.berotracker.de/portal/zeige_thread.php?id=326 http://www.berotracker.de/portal/zeige_thread.php?id=173 ).
You can find fhe new variant with the new GUI at:
http://www.berotracker.de/downloads/testing/BeRoTracker.exe + http://www.berotracker.de/downloads/testing/BeRoTrackerConfiguration.exe
and optional the Font editor http://www.berotracker.de/downloads/testing/BRTFE.exe
This new GUI works now only with ini files (no registry entries for program options). THe new GUI will be later also as "native" linux (and maybe also macosx) build available. My GUI engine uses OpenGL for rendering. It's ImpulseTracker like and still very incomplete.
Hm, to really compare the tracks fairly they must have the
same (normalized) volume and don't use any additional
equalizer/surround/bass expander/...
For me it's important, that all samples after the export
into a wav-file sounding the same like played alone
with the keyboard.
Quote from: "Poser"Hm, to really compare the tracks fairly they must have the
same (normalized) volume and don't use any additional
equalizer/surround/bass expander/...
For me it's important, that all samples after the export
into a wav-file sounding the same like played alone
with the keyboard.
I have didn't use any additional equalizer/surround/bass expander/etc. It's the resampling algorithm. A normal 256-point SINC algorithm with a blackman exact window.
Quote from: "beRo"I have didn't use any additional equalizer/surround/bass expander/etc. It's the resampling algorithm.
I just said that to avoid wrong results (many users have change the player settings to their own needs).
This settings must be set to default (or off) to get clean results to compare.
Anyway we can't compare because the tracks have not the same volume...
Of course i can provide 3 version of the example tracks exported with ModPlug,
but i normalize them and convert them to MP3 128K (not OGG).
If i do the same with BeRoTracker and use your suggested settings THEN
we could compare it really. Unfortunately BeRoTracker don't run anymore
on my machine (crashes at start), so for my part i can't do nothing more.
Maybe you could export it first to .wav, then normalize it and save it to .mp3...
But we need no meaningless spectrum-screenshot but a really HEARABLE difference.
I saved my example track also with the worst settings in ModPlug and it still
sounds better than the BeRo-version.
As a hint: In BRT works the filters like in Original ImpulseTracker and not like in ModPlug. You can find more details here: http://dumb.sourceforge.net/index.php?page=docs&doc=modplug . Short: MPT uses an other filter algorithm than BRT+Original IT. BeRoTracker is optimized in the IT mode for original ImpulseTracjkr replayer rules, and not for ModPlug replayer rules, that are a bit buggy. Here is a Abuse Test Kit: http://bero.freqvibez.net/BeRoTracker/ImpulseTrackerReplayerRulesAbuseTests/abuse.zip Play it in Original IT, BRT and MT. Oroginal IT and BRT plays all files right, but MPT has some problems on some files. The WAV files are from the Original ImpulseTracker (Mono WAV Writer). I hope this abuse test kit can help the MPT developer to fix the bugs.
Quote from: "Poser"I saved my example track also with the worst settings in ModPlug and it still
sounds better than the BeRo-version.
Yes, it's maybe right, because your example track is maybe optimized for the modplug replayer rules & filter algorithm, and THIS is for a compare between MPT & BRT very unfair. Because the modplug replayer rules doesn't often match to 100% the original tracker rules, and the MPT filter algorithm isn't equal with the Original IT+BRT filter algorithm.
Hey guys, let's make music, not war ;)
State everything below is my IMNHO:
"The best software is software you know best of all" - someone told. In fact, 80% of success in music creation (design, programming, etc., etc., etc.) process depends on you, not on your tools. The reason I keep using OpenMPT is that I've been using it for years and I grow as it grows while it grows as I grow; I know every inch in it and how to use every its feature. I've really got used to its interface so I can do in it what I can't in other trackers (e.g. Renoise).
If you don't get the expected results in other programs it means that you've done everything right: you've tweaked your track for OpenMPT/BeRo/Something_Else (depending on your choice). For example, I tweak my tracks for OpenMPT so that I should spend hours and hours changing volumes, pannings, filters, other effects and params in order to get best results in other software.
I believe BeRoTracker has the best resampling engine ever. But on the other hand I believe that the best solution is an optimal solution. The most simple way to detect the optimality level is the "cost/quality" ratio. As for current BRT version, cost overcomes quality: cost means the great amount of runtime bugs and extremely high hardware requirements, quality means BRT quality (sorry, no more comments on BRT quality). In case of MPT, quality is not so high but its cost is much much lower, so that for me MPT quality overcomes cost. And don't forget that its the era of VST/VSTi, samples are getting less important than they used to before.
BRT bugs and licensing. I don't think it's FreePascal's fault as bugs are born in our heads, not in our tools. That's just a lack of debugging. We should thank Olivier for 2 things: 1) for doing lots of debugging himself so that original MPT is pretty stable - the reason for hundreds people around the world to continue using it, 2) for opening its source. There's just a short period between a bug in OpenMPT is detected and fixed. "Two heads are better than one" - not always true if those two heads are too tired of regular work whereas that one head is genius, but not in case of debugging. So, the measures that can be taken in order to make BRT more stable are: running a user-friendly bugtracking system, increasing number of developers in the team (or at least the number of betatesters). I haven't mentioned opening its source yet. I understand that BRT is a beRo's child. Better to say, its his son: so beRo wants his son to return some resources (money, power, fame) when it ("he") grows up. But... does BRT have commercial success? If you ask me about BRT as it currently is I answer "no". The audio market is too crowded, you know. And even best sampler in the world can't be enough for getting an army of customers. Sure you can improve BRT and implement tons and tons of features in it but the market doesn't stop. As for me, I'm all for 2 kinds of licensing: complete OpenSource (e.g. OpenMPT, Linux) and Double Licensing (e.g. MySQL, Qt). If I was beRo I would choose the second one: distributing open BRT with 2 licenses. First one is free for non-commercial use. Second one is commercial.
OFFTOPIC to beRo about FPC (Free Pascal). Have you informed the FPC team about your project? I think you should do it so that they post it in the news (as they've done for Pixel Image Editor) or somewhere else for FPC users to know "FPC - what you can do with it" and for your project to get more publicity. (Remark: I'm leading a project written in Free Pascal, so I'm a FPC programmer also). BTW, a funny fact: open MPT is written in commercial VCPP environment whereas close BRT is written in opensource FPC, don't you think there should be a change? :)
Quote from: "Trustmaster"BTW, a funny fact: open MPT is written in commercial VCPP environment whereas close BRT is written in opensource FPC, don't you think there should be a change? :)
I was just thinking of that, the source is available for MPT. But I cant help the project as I only have the standard version of Visual C++ that doesnt support P4 ASM and the like. I think it should be changed to a free compiler (and yes, I've thought about doing it myself :) ), the more people there are that are able to work on it, the more people who will actually work on it.
The reasonable open compiler for OpenMPT would be MinGW G++ port with Bloodshed Dev-Cpp IDE (http://www.bloodshed.net/). The problem is that MPT code is tied into MFC, but recently I've read an article about porting MFC applications from VCPP to Dev-Cpp (unfortunately, it is in Russian, but anyways it shows that there is such a possibility).
Quote from: "Trustmaster"OFFTOPIC to beRo about FPC (Free Pascal). Have you informed the FPC team about your project? I think you should do it so that they post it in the news (as they've done for Pixel Image Editor) or somewhere else for FPC users to know "FPC - what you can do with it" and for your project to get more publicity. (Remark: I'm leading a project written in Free Pascal, so I'm a FPC programmer also). BTW, a funny fact: open MPT is written in commercial VCPP environment whereas close BRT is written in opensource FPC, don't you think there should be a change? :)
Yes, I've informed some FPC coders about BeRoTracker, because FPC compiles BeRoTracker only right if no high code optimzations are enabled (-O2 or higher else BRT can't load/&save any XM/IT Tracks and has corrupted routines, where the code peephole optimizier messed these code parts up. FPC compiles BeRoTracker only right, if -O1 or no code optimzation are enabled. I wanted to report this bug, but nobody was interested with their reason "The code snippets are too big, please reduce it to the substantia", but how, because if I did do this, FPC compiles this right, but then BRT would still be compiled incorrectly. Therefore the bug will remain in the FPC compiler until they accept big bug reports.
Bugreporting is not the way of informing I mean ;)
You know, your bug is very personal and there's a little chance they fix it through the standard bugtracking system. On the other hand you can't fix it yourself if you know the reason because you're not a compiler developer. So the only thing that comes to my head is to catch some FPC developer on IRC and make him interested in helping you. Sounds like "you should find a friend in FPC team", but it is the most reliable way in fact. Or you may still try to find out the reason itself, but it is a lot of time and a great chance of spending the time in vain. Another question is "do you really need -O2 and -O3 optimization"? I don't think it is significant enough to speed BRT up a lot (at least more than 5%). But maybe this statement isn't right as everything is concreet code-dependent.
Quote from: "Trustmaster"Bugreporting is not the way of informing I mean ;)
You know, your bug is very personal and there's a little chance they fix it through the standard bugtracking system. On the other hand you can't fix it yourself if you know the reason because you're not a compiler developer. So the only thing that comes to my head is to catch some FPC developer on IRC and make him interested in helping you. Sounds like "you should find a friend in FPC team", but it is the most reliable way in fact. Or you may still try to find out the reason itself, but it is a lot of time and a great chance of spending the time in vain. Another question is "do you really need -O2 and -O3 optimization"? I don't think it is significant enough to speed BRT up a lot (at least more than 5%). But maybe this statement isn't right as everything is concreet code-dependent.
I'm also a compiler developer (BeRoScript ( http://bero.0ok.de/page/index.php?p=23 ), PHPPascal ( http://bero.0ok.de/page/index.php?p=32 ), The 0ok Assembler ( you can a IDE Video at http://bero.freqvibez.net/t0aide.avi ), BeRoPascal a objectpascal compiler where only the parser is done etc.)
I've only no time to work me into the FPC sources and search&fix the bug in the x86 code peephole optimizer, because the FPC sources are very big and to complex to understand in a short time, how the compiler internals are defined etc. Short: I've too many projects (and not only BeRoTracker) to fix it myself.
About the same feelings. For example, there's a fantom bug in FPC Sockets on Win32 that we've been searching for for about half a year but it is still there. An extreme lack of time. Running lots of things at the same time also...
Thanks for the links. It will take time to analyze your stuff.
BTW, my FPC project is Pascal Server Pages (http://www.psp.furtopia.org). I think it might be interesting for you as for a web developer and FPC programmer.
Quote from: "beRo"As a hint: In BRT works the filters like in Original ImpulseTracker and not like in ModPlug. (...) Play it in Original IT, BRT and MT. Oroginal IT and BRT plays all files right, but MPT has some problems on some files. The WAV files are from the Original ImpulseTracker (Mono WAV Writer). I hope this abuse test kit can help the MPT developer to fix the bugs.
It's not a good idea to fix those so-called "bugs" because we musicians don't want
that our songs sounding different after each new release of modplug...
Perhaps also those "bugs" are the own "sound-flair" of modplug...
Quote from: "Trustmaster""The best software is software you know best of all" - someone told. In fact, 80% of success in music creation (design, programming, etc., etc., etc.) process depends on you, not on your tools.
Good point. When things get focused on the sound quality, it can easily be forgotten how, in a way, irrelevant sound quality issues after all can be. Also sound quality issues are much more 'era dependent' - for example a 'good' rhythm can remain for ages, where as todays good sound quality will hardly be such in relatively near future.
Quote from: "Trustmaster"BTW, a funny fact: open MPT is written in commercial VCPP environment whereas close BRT is written in opensource FPC, don't you think there should be a change? :)
Indeed it could be nice that OMPT would compile with dev-cpp(or some other free IDE), even though I must admit that in certain things it's almost a pleasure to use visual C++ compared to dev-cpp.
Quote from: "Squirrel Havoc"But I cant help the project as I only have the standard version of Visual C++ that doesnt support P4 ASM and the like.
You mean it needs some 'professional/enterprise' version to compile OMPT?
Quote from: "Relabsoluness"Quote from: "Squirrel Havoc"But I cant help the project as I only have the standard version of Visual C++ that doesnt support P4 ASM and the like.
You mean it needs some 'professional/enterprise' version to compile OMPT?
I think so, the processor pack requires pro or better, and i just have standard