2D support yeehaa!

[avasopht]

I wonder if the addition of the Vector operations (SSE) will bring U-He back to the table. Still would like to see Satin come out as a Rack Extension..

Well SSE was just one of his demands. Naturally I can't comment on the others, but in having spent some time working on a (for fun) design of a similar plugin architecture I would just say that there may be some practical reasons for the permanent omission of one of uHe's demands, such as the use of static variables.

[psychasm]

I..... think....... this could be a good thing.  I think this may allow for the developer who has no 3D design skills more options to be creative than to have to use stock 3D assets.  The beauty of the 3D environment has been in its ability to maintain a consistency with that "Propellerhead Rack Look".  With the ability for 2D design this will (small or big) break that.  Hopefully a level of constraint on the developers side and a level of control on Propellerhead's side allow for devices that look natural in the rack.  If not you could have a lot of this...

 

It's possible to achieve a 3d look using photoshop and applying the correct knowledge of pseudo-3d fx and intuitive layering, masking, texturing , etc. Not too mention a lot quickerif you know what you want hand how to do it. Even the "Archviz" guys rely heavily on Photoshop for post-processing of 3d-rendered images especially when under pressure to meet deadlines.Mistakes can quickly be "painted over" and the viewer will be non the wiser. Of course, if the 3d environment has been set up with materials ,lighting and rendering presets , materials and shaders , fast engine and so forth , a high degree of realism can be achieved quicker than if starting from scratch and having to customise evrything.It does also help to have a library items constantly used , especially geometry and shaders ,which can take time to set up if a certain "look" is what is needing to be achieved... I must state also that the more realistic and instrument appears to me, the more "real" it "feels" and possibly to some ,more tempting to buy over something that looks cheap. On the other hand all of those renders can take up a lot of time and any major design changes which may take a few mins in 2d can translate into a few hours in 3d. Perhaps Props should set a standard by what is acceptable for 2d designs as well as 3d because I have seen some 3d Re-renders which look horrific and the instrument actually made it into the shop, and is loved by most i see commenting on this forum. At the end of the day it's not about the looks but how it sounds.

[Sinistereo]

Having gotten knee-deep into the RE SDK, it's clear to me that Propellerhead has invested serious time and effort into making the developer kit a quality product. For those of us who have wondered why commercial Reason feature development seems to have stalled, this is undoubtedly a big part of the answer.

Props has bet big on the RE ecosystem... anything that helps get more developers into the game will help everyone.

[pjeudy]

After all is said and done I see this as a reality check for Propellerhead ! They set the bar wayy high...to high I think to create plugins (3d Package,lack of SDK features,30% cut etc..)
Sure they have the right Idea in terms of having a solid foundation/environment in which to create those plugins but the price of entree wasn't right!

Everyone and there mother who has ever edited an image in there life knows more or less how to use a 2d Package..there are thousands of Photoshop how to online on how to fake 3D with good lighting some people are super good at it. Will see what happens now! 
Has anybody contacted Sonic Charge or posted on there forums regarding this new SDK ?!

[MirEko]

Check out what this guy does with Microsoft Paint..

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qvX3zupoeEU

2D is a great thing for RE

[chimp_spanner]

Kind of in two minds about this. There are already some Re's that don't look great (not naming any names!) so it's not like the current system prevents ugly GUI's. That said, I really hope that developers don't run away with it too much and start creating racks that look like they don't belong at all (talking like flat iOS 8 style, or over-exaggerated/fake 3D, etc.). Reason already has the potential to be visually overwhelming ya know. Mixing styles too much could be a real headache. But whatever, I guess if I don't like the look of it I don't have to buy it!

[mrj1nx]

Personally I'm hoping this will make Rob Papen update some of their stuff, like SubBoomBase, the VST looks amazing, the RE not so much. But obviously it's not about the looks, and anyways, its probably down to fitting all the knobs in a limited size rather than the whole 2d/3d thing. They need to add support for tabbed views etc (or did they already?). That will open up the possibility for synths like RP's Blue 2 as well as making synths like SubBoomBase be able to look as good as the VST. Another thing, it will increase the ease of use as it's easier to separate out concepts, like for example the arpeggiator into a tabbed or folded view.

[SebAudio]

But whatever, I guess if I don't like the look of it I don't have to buy it!

Exactely ! Look and feel is what makes me prefer Reason over other DAWs. So if the look or the feel is not "Reason way" it's not going to be in my rack !

[esselfortium]

I did an IRL fistpump when I read the OP. Thank you Propellerhead!

I'm not too concerned about this leading to ugly RE interfaces, since we already have a diverse range of beautiful-to-hideous RE interfaces on the market even with the original requirements.

[gak]

I like the beautiful ones, but frankly, function is the most important one. And I agree, there are some butt-ugly ones even with the original SDK. 

[jam-s]

They need to add support for tabbed views etc (or did they already?)

Hopefully this will not be allowed in the near future, as I really dislike this in VST land. Imagine a hardware rack device that could switch the position of its buttons when pressing a button in real life... not going to happen, unless you design the front of the device to be a single touch interface, which rather beats the purpose of having a hardware analogon in the first place.
Instead folding sections (like the rv7000 programmer) would be the better (=Reason) way to implement this kind of feature.

[selig]

They need to add support for tabbed views etc (or did they already?)

Hopefully this will not be allowed in the near future, as I really dislike this in VST land. Imagine a hardware rack device that could switch the position of its buttons when pressing a button in real life... not going to happen, unless you design the front of the device to be a single touch interface, which rather beats the purpose of having a hardware analogon in the first place. Instead folding sections (like the rv7000 programmer) would be the better (=Reason) way to implement this kind of feature.

The thing is, with a VST you can create a larger interface therefore avoiding the need for tabbed views, but with REs you are stuck with a small display.

Additionally, there are features such as the simplified view that you wouldn't want all the time, but may want to use once you get the basic settings established. And due to the limited real estate available you may not be able to have these controls visible in all views, folded or not. 

Of course, some folks are used to software that uses tabbed views such as web browsers, and most folks understand how these work just fine. There are already SO many ways the Reason interface breaks the common laws of physics that there is no need to be 100% tied to the hardware analogy - and isn't that one of the great benefits of software in the first place?

[jam-s]

Well, switch-able "inserts" (like in Thor) would also be OK from my pov and there's also the back plate for some obscure settings. So there could be quite some room for different parameters (even when sticking to a max of 9U).

Imho if your device borders on using this much rack space you'd better modularize it into independent units that can be linked if needed. This also fits the modular approach of Reason much better. With this paradigm in mind no synth would need to have on-board FX, as those could be done with external FX devices and the matching patches would then simply be turned into combinators.

[selig]

Well, switch-able "inserts" (like in Thor) would also be OK from my pov and there's also the back plate for some obscure settings. So there could be quite some room for different parameters (even when sticking to a max of 9U). Imho if your device borders on using this much rack space you'd better modularize it into independent units that can be linked if needed. This also fits the modular approach of Reason much better. With this paradigm in mind no synth would need to have on-board FX, as those could be done with external FX devices and the matching patches would then simply be turned into combinators.

The modular approach won't work with synths because it doesn't allow polyphonic voice architectures. I'd say that synths are also the main devices that would need tabbed displays, as a folding approach doesn't give you any more space than a non-folding approach.

[ScuzzyEye]

...if your device borders on using this much rack space you'd better modularize it into independent units that can be linked if needed. This also fits the modular approach of Reason much better. With this paradigm in mind no synth would need to have on-board FX, as those could be done with external FX devices and the matching patches would then simply be turned into combinators.

To expand upon Giles' reply. Synths don't really need reverb/delay, or chorus/flanger effects on board, if they are applied globally. But things like filters, and LFOs, if they can be triggered per note have to be included in the synth, unless you want an individual audio cable (pair--for stereo) for each simultaneous voice. That's almost doable (but still messy), for less than 8, but once you start getting into higher polyphony counts it just becomes impossible. Can you imagine routing 64 audio cables, for a 32 polyphonic, stereo synth, and then at least 64 CV for note and gate, 32 more if you want pitch bend, 32 more for mod wheel, and 32 for any other performance controls.

The modular approach really only works for monophonic synths.

[Faastwalker]

 

I'd have to be paid by the developer to have that thing in my rack!! It's really, really bad.

[SebAudio]

They need to add support for tabbed views etc (or did they already?)

Hopefully this will not be allowed in the near future, as I really dislike this in VST land. Imagine a hardware rack device that could switch the position of its buttons when pressing a button in real life... not going to happen, unless you design the front of the device to be a single touch interface, which rather beats the purpose of having a hardware analogon in the first place.
Instead folding sections (like the rv7000 programmer) would be the better (=Reason) way to implement this kind of feature.

I agree. But I think "tabs" can be useful if used to group different "purposes" : a tab for the synth part (where you can see all the "synthesis modules" : it's here that hardware analogy has to be good. It's the "official face of the synth"), a tab for FX, a tab for arp and seq, a tab for drawing waveforms, env, etc.
RP synths for example could benefit from such a possibilty : there are too big and cramped with little knobs in order to have everything on a single panel.

[buddard]

Imagine a hardware rack device that could switch the position of its buttons when pressing a button in real life... not going to happen, unless you design the front of the device to be a single touch interface, which rather beats the purpose of having a hardware analogon in the first place.

You mean like Kong?

[jam-s]

Hmm, good retort, I guess that's one example where having the freedom of software is better than having this in hardware (like Selig mentioned). Still the Props have styled it as if it could be a hardware device with plug-able module slots. Also those are located in the programmer setion, where one could argue that this section is only connected during initial setup of the hardware.

As stated above, I would not mind those plug-in module type functionality, but I really dislike a tabbed interface (unless it's all LCD-styled).
The polyphonic issue on the other hand is another call for virtual midi cables and for the official adoption of the PolyCV spec by the Props.

[ScuzzyEye]

The polyphonic issue on the other hand is another call for virtual midi cables and for the official adoption of the PolyCV spec by the Props.

PolyCV only handles note data. I suppose a virtual MIDI cable could send all performance parameters (after all real MIDI does that). But that still leaves sending each voice individually. That'd require some sort of multiplexed audio stream (like ADAT), but each voice would require the sampling rate between devices go up by a multiple. Getting much more than 8 voices on one virtual ADAT cable would be just as difficult as getting more than 8 channels on a real ADAT. Still having 1/8th the cables would move modular synths into the realm of possibility.

[selig]

Hmm, good retort, I guess that's one example where having the freedom of software is better than having this in hardware (like Selig mentioned). Still the Props have styled it as if it could be a hardware device with plug-able module slots. Also those are located in the programmer setion, where one could argue that this section is only connected during initial setup of the hardware. As stated above, I would not mind those plug-in module type functionality, but I really dislike a tabbed interface (unless it's all LCD-styled). The polyphonic issue on the other hand is another call for virtual midi cables and for the official adoption of the PolyCV spec by the Props.

I think you're confusing poly notes with poly voices here.

As far as the tabbed interface, you'll not like what I'd potentially create and that's fine - can't please everyone. But you've mentioned no real reason not to do a tabbed interface IF it were possible, only that you don't want one. And you've indicated that you DO want one if it looks like a virtual LCD - which makes no sense to me why one tabbed interface is OK and another is not. Reason doesn't follow a strict physical paradigm, and I've never understood why one should be restricted to the physical world in software if you can create a more useful UI. Again, you're obviously not my target audience, and that's OK with me.

But since it's not currently possible it's a non-issue for the time being!

[esselfortium]

The stock devices at least almost always have followed that paradigm, though, where multiple screens are concerned. The NN-XT's remote programmer is controlled via knobs that only have digital indicators of their position, because the knob positions are dependent on the note range selected. The RV7000's remote programmer has eight similarly unmarked knobs that are labeled only on the digital readout, with all of the changing parts of each tab being contained on the digital display.

I think it's an effective and sensible way of handling it. Plus, there's nothing to say you couldn't make a stylish touch screen to make your tabbed interface really stand out

Shameless plug:

I designed these mockup RE interfaces in Photoshop back in 2011 before the 3D requirement was public knowledge. I've recently registered as a developer and am quite interested to find out more about how 2D assets will be handled.

[joeyluck]

The stock devices at least almost always have followed that paradigm, though, where multiple screens are concerned. The NN-XT's remote programmer is controlled via knobs that only have digital indicators of their position, because the knob positions are dependent on the note range selected. The RV7000's remote programmer has eight similarly unmarked knobs that are labeled only on the digital readout, with all of the changing parts of each tab being contained on the digital display.

I think it's an effective and sensible way of handling it. Plus, there's nothing to say you couldn't make a stylish touch screen to make your tabbed interface really stand out

Shameless plug:

I designed these mockup RE interfaces in Photoshop back in 2011 before the 3D requirement was public knowledge. I've recently registered as a developer and am quite interested to find out more about how 2D assets will be handled.

I remember those and they look great!
It's a perfect example of when folks are able to use the tools they are most comfortable with to create a GUI. Those look better than most devices in the shop! Hope the new SDK opens many doors. And, for folks who aren't DSP coders... it will hopefully mean many more opportunities for GUI designers.

[Gaja]

Esselfortium these devices look gorgeous! I usually don't care much about how a device looks, but these things just look fantastic!

[ebop]

I'm as OCD as the next guy, but I'm sure I wouldn't even blink an eyelid if I saw a flat RE amongst pseudo shaded REs and stock devices in the rack. Reason is already so vibrant and visually chaotic (when compared with say Ableton) that I don't think it would actually bother me if I'm honest.