Total Integration Discussion

[synthman1]

Original post by synthman1:

I think Soarer means just a stand alone synth editor and librarian like everyone else does rather than total integration. I for one am behind this as well.

This is just my observation, but the VC is a never ending rat race of constant os releases and an Access resource hog to try and make the virus ti work on every combination of software DAW that comes out for every platform in realtime. While they have done a good job at attempting this, its far from perfect. It was a good idea on paper. It simply doesnt work for everyone and as a consequence the Virus TI OS is still riddled with bugs.

I say drop it. No one else does this and with good reason. I dont have it on my other synths and dont use it on my Virus. For those who do fair enough, you have it working on whatevery you are using. That doenst mean Access is obligated to continue this maddness.

It eats up to much development resources. Just make a stand alone editor and librarian and call it a day. This way Access can get back to adding feature updates regularly rather than always putting out fires evertime a software manufacturer comes out with this years revisions.

While Access keeps tinkering with this bug and that bug other synth makers are adding Flash RAM for sample usage through their signal path.

While Access is at it, maybe they can release an OS version without all the TI nonsense for those who dont need it. One thats lighter and better optimized like good old days freeing resources for more valuable things like more filter options, new osc types and additional envelope generators.


Reply by Marc:

the developer teams for virus control/OS integration and the sound engineers are independent. even if we would stop all this "nonsense" (which brought us a couple of awards, good press and eventually some happy users as well), the development of new synthesis functions wouldn't benefit from it. i can understand your notion for a lighter product but in this case there would be no benefit.


Reply By Synthman1:

The end results appear to be the same as many can attest to per the latest OS release. These issues have been fairly constant for years and will continue as long as TI is supported and modified to incorporate more software compatibility. Why wouldnt it based on past history?

I want me a Virus D!

Its hard enough to develop a rock solid software/hardware hybrid synth with the level of complexity of the Virus let try to make one operate in every possible music software application on the planet and systems via USB network.

This is an important topic and definitely a discussion that should continue elsewhere if not here in this thread.

I'm not sure how this doesnt relate topically to the initial post, but ok, I'll let you get back to your specifics in this tread by request. If anyone would like to comment on anything I've posted about TI, please start a post and I'll be happy to discuss there.

if you want a "virus d" - don't use total integration - it is an option to those who like to integrate their virus into a DAW environment. if you believe that things would be different without total integration, nobody will ever know unless you can travel in a parallel time. but seriously, I think i have a pretty good knowledge of how things work together and all i can tell you is what i know and how the people feel who developed it all.

I think its fair to say most including myself, appreciate the effort and time the team puts into the product including total integration. That shouldnt be lost in this discussion. A lot of people do see value in it regardless of how others may view it.

The answer very well may lie in what Marc refers to as "parallel time". Why not release an OS without TI for those dont use it? That way, the people who dont use it wont have to deal with the bugs from these features in the OS that effect the Virus operation regardless.

Following this for years and seeing all the issues, its just hard to believe the Virus wouldnt be far more evolved and different instrument today if there was a simple stand alone editor and Access spent more of their resources on more frequent feature evolution like they used to rather than this nightmare. TI has obviously had to affect this.

It's exactly that complexity which makes pure front panel editing no longer an option for many users, myself included.

And besides, as Marc also says, the entire business model and brand is now predicated upon the Ti concept: turning back is simply not an option.

Thats why everyone else makes a simple stand alone editor.

At some point TI support may end. If Access decides to retire the TI and come out with something new, you cant expect them to support TI forever on a past model. What if its too cost prohibitive to continue in order to compete with what the rest of the market is doing or to stay afloat? I can only imagine how time consuming and costly it must be to test TI on different systems with all the different DAW applications. Every time they change something extensive QA testing must be done.

At some point all synth makers move on. Just because they have a Virus TI today doesnt mean they will in 2 years. The next Virus maybe Virus S for sample ram integration. It doesnt necessarily have to include TI anymore. What if Access isnt around? (god forbid!) Roland, Yamaha or Korg dont continue to

support the past models indefinitely. The problem with software TI is its always one step away from being obsolete. Electronic music equipment has a nice universal time tested total integration method since 1986. Its called MIDI.