What sort of library do you want with R6?

Jay, first off you have to forgive me if i am talking nonsense. Like i said, im CS dropout, but i realize that the only people who can change things here are almost certainly versed in programming langs.

What you posted to me is actually a great example of what i was trying to say as far as programming.

would you agree we barely have have right now ens.ism.x,
it would not be a huge project for builders to convert to the convention of ens.ism.sampler.x or ens.ism.sampler.y., does that make any sense to you programmers?

 

well i am writing such a live documentation for a complex and big ensemble since November 2006. I am writing it parallel while creating this ensemble with all problems and questions from readers; there are no secrets and it is really a learning book BUT it is only in German. At the end there will be a finished ensemble and a finished work book which show the long way of learning REAKTOR while creating.
Perhaps some of you understand the german text or can translate it for yourself. I think it is a new way to write a "tutorial" because it is a tutorial with the possibility to ask the creator while he is working and to get a view into his thinking.

ciao herw

 

@machinehermit: I'd say it pretty much follows that as much as possible, and ensemble will be a synthesizer type, with an ism that is the same, it will consist of 1 or more instances of an oscillator class(macro), filter class(macro), envelope class(macro), etc... that are all labeled as such. What doesn't tend to follow naming conventions is the (often huge amount of) intermediate code required to string it all together. I'd say the similarities between Reaktor and something like Visual Studio are striking, save for Reaktor having the unique 'visual syntax.'

@Herw: That's very good of you mate, I'm sure a lot of people will find that very useful. You can always go to altavista.com and click on babelfish, and translate it into any common European language.

 

yea, jay you are right now that i open up some more advanced ens. like carbon, the osc is right there as a macro but its the intermediate code to string things togather that would make it useless as far as just saving the whole top osc macro.
The only other thing i an think of that would make reaktor cool for intermediate users would be some type of modular patch cable. Some kind of output to panel for control signals that could then be patched to any knob on the panel. I mean one fun thing with the nord modular is just randomly patching things and seeing what happens without any idea what the outcome is going to be.

 

^^^^Reaktor ensembles are very unique in the regard that you can fiddle about with the code while your running the final release version of the application. It's not like I can take the final release version of Microsoft Excel, grab some .dll files out of its program file directory, and just start using them in my own application. They'd either have to be decompiled(OMG, ILLEGAL!!! :-O) or I'd have to know the specifics of how to call a function from it in code(can you say, trade secrets?). Even if you did go to all of that trouble, it still would be just as "not self-explanatory."

 

)

 

This would be at the top of my wish list for R6.

I really like the Idea of using Reaktor as a real modular synth.

I think it would encourage builders to create useful and reuseable modules with more standard interfaces.

As far as builders documenting their creations - I can see that this is prohibitively time consuming, however if builders could at least put comments on module inputs and outputs, to give some clue as to the signals expected and signal use, it would make it easier for others to understand and reuse.

 

look here!

 

Hi herw,

Yes, great work indeed ! - I love it.

But I think NI need to add a "Visible" property to the in and out ports for macros amd modules.

 

I want more pre built filters and osc, all different types. Other than that I love Reaktor.