Had a Quick Chat with D16 group Szymon About Phoscyon 303 EMULATION

[pjeudy]

My question to D16 group was:
Has D16 group considered porting Phoscyon to the propellerhead REASON format ?

There answer:
Hello Pjeudy. ReRacks are certainly within the plan. Still though we can't specify the exact date as there are too many current works to catch up with (as for instance chasing the endlessly newer and newer Mac OSes, or primarily - the creative work). Provided we start our attempts to the ReRack format, we must decide whether the devices would be 1 to 1 with original plugins, or should they respect the specific ReRack GUI that ties our hands significantly. We are a small team (+ the graphic designer) and can not start such endeavour just immediately. I hope you understand. In case you find my answer helpful, you might ignore replying. Then the issue-ticket closes automatically in 2 days. Kind regards, Szymon


PS. There is just a bit more to be written about it: As for the the plugins being adapted to Reason: as the ReRack's SDK format puts strong constraints when it comes to GUI (and this strongly influences the functionality), we have no certainty that we will be able to move them 1:1. Therefore, in case we succeed in creating the ReRacks devices, the outcome machines will only be inspired by our existing drum machines as opposed to 1:1 conversions. Kind regards, Szymon

One thing I didn't mention to him is, how the RE format had been updated to a new SDK ....Maybe they are unaware of it or maybe it still is to restrictive for there products! Maybe someone else with more knowledge with what's new with the REASON SDK,might give them a shout out

Roland TB 303 Clones: ABL2 (vst) vs Phoscyon
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbWfEPgTntk

[joeyluck]

The fact that they call it 'ReRacks' tells me they learned of the format from a Reason user early on. Many Reason users were calling it that in the speculation days before it was officially announced. A Reason user likely asked them very early on. It is likely they do not have up-to-date info.

[nikolafeve]

Interesting!

[ochenk]

I love how "the SDK's UI limitations" has become the stock answer whenever a developer isn't interested in developing REs, whether it actually applies or not. There's nothing in the Phoscyon UI that couldn't have been done in SDK1. They even have the 3D models to work from. If D16 is saying that the layout might have to be changed because REs have to be a certain width and height, that might be true, but that's not a limitation of the SDK. That's just how they laid out the UI to begin with. And even that might not need to actually be changed. Phoscyon is 785px wide. A RE needs to be 754px. That's a 4% shrinkage. They could probably just shrink everything down by 4% without losing any usability or legibility.

The UI format in the RE SDK absolutely has limitations. Some of those limitations are simply because the RE SDK is still young in its development and haven't been addressed yet. Some of those limitations are intentional because they have big upsides like stability and portability. But those limitations aren't nearly as restrictive as many developers seem to believe (or seem to perpetuate as an excuse for not considering the platform.)

 

[Theo.M]

Ochen, they are talking about just taking a plugin and making an identical RE, 1:1, when they discuss limitations. Alot of devs won't be interested in spending time making a special RE version.

Besides KHS one and the korg stuff, bitspeek.. all other RE's seem like purpose programmed RE's so far imo.

[ochenk]

Ochen, they are talking about just taking a plugin and making an identical RE, 1:1, when they discuss limitations. Alot of devs won't be interested in spending time making a special RE version.

Besides KHS one and the korg stuff, bitspeek.. all other RE's seem like purpose programmed RE's so far imo.

I'm responding to this: "as the ReRack's SDK format puts strong constraints when it comes to GUI (and this strongly influences the functionality), we have no certainty that we will be able to move them 1:1."

The RE SDK puts no limits on their ability to adapt their UI 1:1. Yes, programming under the hood has to change, but that's the point of creating the RE SDK - to change how audio is processed and managed to avoid all the very significant problems with VST/AU/etc. formats. 

Porting code takes time. Porting a UI takes time. Some code can't currently be ported. Some UIs can't currently be ported. Phoscyon's UI can be ported (and could have been ported under SDK1.) D16 can absolutely say that the code can't be ported, or that it can but that's not where they want to spend their time. They can also say they don't want to do the work to port the UI. But it's false to claim that the RE SDK can't support their UI. It can.

[Benedict]

This may be inaccurate but:

The thing that seems revealing to me about the common SDK/UI answer for not porting/developing for the RE format is that the talk is always on the UI and not on the sound. I am not aware of any VST Dev saying "I would love to make an RE but I just couldn't get it to sound like a VST". They say they can't get it to look the same. Seems to me like they are really saying that their VST Instrument relies on visual novelty and seeing that isn't easy in the RE SDK then they don't want to port.

That or it is simply that they don't see the money happening for the time it would take to get things running and supported. No shame there but I would think it better to say something more like that. Less pie to choke on if/when they change their minds.

Either way it simply means that we don't have tons of uncommitted developers making devices that make little sense in Reason which leaves space for those who want to develop tools that fit well in the platform.

[Theo.M]

Ochen, they are talking about just taking a plugin and making an identical RE, 1:1, when they discuss limitations. Alot of devs won't be interested in spending time making a special RE version.

Besides KHS one and the korg stuff, bitspeek.. all other RE's seem like purpose programmed RE's so far imo.

I'm responding to this: "as the ReRack's SDK format puts strong constraints when it comes to GUI (and this strongly influences the functionality), we have no certainty that we will be able to move them 1:1."

The RE SDK puts no limits on their ability to adapt their UI 1:1. Yes, programming under the hood has to change, but that's the point of creating the RE SDK - to change how audio is processed and managed to avoid all the very significant problems with VST/AU/etc. formats. 

Porting code takes time. Porting a UI takes time. Some code can't currently be ported. Some UIs can't currently be ported. Phoscyon's UI can be ported (and could have been ported under SDK1.) D16 can absolutely say that the code can't be ported, or that it can but that's not where they want to spend their time. They can also say they don't want to do the work to port the UI. But it's false to claim that the RE SDK can't support their UI. It can.

how could phoscyon/drumazon be ported 1:1 and fit in the rack? I can't see it. The silverline maybe. 

[joeyluck]

Well being constrained to creating a GUI one particular way may be seen as a limitation to others. You can be an an area that has the best subway system, but lack some other forms of transportation... It would still be considered a limitation in choices. But doesn't mean the subway is limited.

In any case, again as I mentioned above they referred to it as 'ReRacks' which implies they may have received info on RE SDK very early on and maybe even secondhand...

So in other words... Keep bugging them and be sure to send them proper links to developer pages.

[EnochLight]

how could phoscyon/drumazon be ported 1:1 and fit in the rack? I can't see it. The silverline maybe. 

Both would quite well, actually.  They're both smaller than Thor (not even near 9U).  That said, the RE SDK still can't send patterns to track or sample so... there's that.  

[ochenk]

The RE SDK limits what developers can do with the interface. SDK1 was more limited than SDK2. When SDK1 launched, many developers looked at the platform, and determined that their devices couldn't be ported to the RE format because their devices required things that the SDK didn't support, such as foldable panels, multiple screens, graphic displays, drawable areas, etc. So, the SDK got a (reasonably accurate) reputation as being too limited. SDK2 addressed some of those issues, but not all. The reputation still exists (still reasonable, although less so) as still too limited. This is still true if you need foldable panels, complex displays, etc. 

But devices like Phoscyon and Drumazon do not contain any functional graphic elements that the SDK doesn't support. It's a bunch of knobs and buttons and drop-down displays and LEDs, all of which were supported in SDK1. 

It's fine for D16 to say that the code can't be ported. We don't know what the code requires. It's also fine for them to say that they just don't want to port the devices, for whatever reason. My only point was that the statement that they are unable to recreate the interface in Reason because of the limitations in the SDK UI is a false statement. There's nothing in the UI of either device that can't currently be implemented in a RE.

[pjeudy]

how could phoscyon/drumazon be ported 1:1 and fit in the rack? I can't see it. The silverline maybe. 

Both would quite well, actually.  They're both smaller than Thor (not even near 9U).  That said, the RE SDK still can't send patterns to track or sample so... there's that.  

Enochlight you're probably  much more diplomatic and knowledgeable on SDK 2 then I am
if you're interested can you give D16 a heads up on what's possible with the SDK 2? Like ochenK is saying...it's like the impression people have about Windows OS for years..that it always crashes and you you'll always get that Blue screen of death ! I'ts hard to loose that first impression!