Sad about Soundfonts

[Sam_Zen]

hmm.. better try some suggestions made here, before any further complaints..

[Saga Musix]

Doesn't compare at all to these nice SF banks..

because they use multisampling/multilayering, which is not possible with one single instrument, as explained above.

[uncloned]

Vienna from creative is floating around on the net.

Is it worth a try to load the offending soundfont, and then save it to a new file and see if that fixes things?

If you want more soundfonts:

http://clones.soonlabel.com/public/sfbank

[LPChip]

Also, you can use VSTi's together with samples.

I personally use sfz for SF2 playback, though I rarelly use SF2's at all. I love VSTi's in general though, so I usually use those instead. Nothing can actually beat a good VSTi, because it can be programmed in such way that for each similar C-4 note, it always sounds slightly different than the last time you played it.

[Nahkranoth]

SF2 support in OMPT is crappy indeed, but I taught myself to live without it I still can't find VSTi which will play ALL soundfonts just how it was intended. SFZ f00ks up when VSTSynthFont does not, and vice versa.
And I still miss that easy panning slides, portamento to note and arpeggios.
I'm so with you on that matter, Nola
Just my 2 cents.

[Saga Musix]

Nothing can actually beat a good VSTi, because it can be programmed in such way that (...)

That, sir, merely depends on what kind of music you want to do.

[LPChip]

Nothing can actually beat a good VSTi, because it can be programmed in such way that (...)

That, sir, merely depends on what kind of music you want to do.

Depends on the VSTi too. There are wavetabled VSTi's which can do about anything.

Add automation to it, and you can nearly replace the effects entirelly.

[Nola]

Modplug can't really do automation of VST's.. the automation support in this tracker is really, really bad -- and bordering on downright completely unusable. It's the worst VST support of any tracker I've used so far.

In the entire song you can only automate 14 different parameters. I mean seriously who are we kidding?

You say we can do all of this stuff with VST automation and yet it's still using SFx?

There was some fxcommand called "#xx" in MPTM, which I assumed would be a total replacement for SFx, but it does not work or seem to do anything.

If Modplug wasn't totally retarded, then you could do this:

Code Select Expand

| ... 01 #40 \00 |
| ... .. ... \FF |


which uses Instrument 1, Parameter #40, with applies automations of 00 and FF.
It supports a parameter selector in the volume column or in the fx column and a full 00 to FF range.

[Saga Musix]

It's the worst VST support of any tracker I've used so far.

If Modplug wasn't totally retarded (...)

Why don't you use one of the non-retarded trackers then?
Seriously, why do people complain if they don't like an application anyway?

And in the next big version (aka RC3), there will be the possiblity to control any parameter of a VST without setting up a macro for it anyway.

[Nahkranoth]

And in the next big version (aka RC3), there will be the possiblity to control any parameter of a VST without setting up a macro for it anyway.

O RLY? w00t w00t w00t!!!

[psishock]

In the entire song you can only automate 14 different parameters. I mean seriously who are we kidding?

16 different parameter (without the Chainer) for one VST(i), you can open a second instance and control those mapped 16 ones separately too. Lets take the example that you are using just a few different type of VSTi and VST, wouldn't that b still enough anyway? I mean what are all those controls that you want to automate all the time?

If Modplug wasn't totally retarded....

Bashing the program this hard? Why bother Nola? I would just use another one instead, if it doesn't suit my needs at all.

It's the worst VST support of any tracker I've used so far.

To be honest, VST support is pretty decent if you ask me, i've seen (a lot) worse in some other trackers.
Automation is a whole different question, but there are workarounds for that too, and we have a few ideas how could it be improved (redesigned).

[uncloned]

I think Open MPT is good for what it does.

I'm biased though because I think the tuning support is awesome.

Soundfonts are nice but you can use samples if you are willing to work harder and obtain really good results.

[residentgrey]

One thing to say to the offensive posts: fart you you farting farthead. Ahem.

Try Psycle or some other program. Look at the lists of software on here and other sites. Play around. MPT is the bee's knees. It does what it's supposed to do and much more than it needs to honestly, which is cool as hell.

I raise a glass to the devvers. Hopefully soon I will be laying some major work on the site dev too. RL really kicked LP and I in the shins. Me one round after the other...all well be well soon. I will have my classes finished soon with lots of source to apply to it.

[rncekel]

RC3? That's sounds great. As I like to use everything that I have at hand (samples, xi's, VST and VSTi's, and a lot of sf, mainly through sfz), I wellcome every improvement in OMPT. So, if it isn't indiscret, would the developers be so gentle as to tell us a tentative date for the new version?
I know that in any case it can't be exact, and that many things may happen in the meantime, but... I'm working now in something that will take at least another year to finish, and with a lot of sf's and VST's, so I'm really quite interested in having an idea of what may come.
Thank you

[Saga Musix]

As said earlier, the next version of OpenMPT will come bundeled with Duke Nukem Forever. :lol:

Seriously, though, we have been planning a release for months now, but I think there's still some small things relabs wants to implement / fix before the release of the next .53 version.