Login

Developers publish nebula.xml file on your websites?

Officially Licensed 3rd Party Developer Libraries
Free 3rd Party Programs

Re: Developers publish nebula.xml file on your websites?

Postby Tim Petherick » Tue Feb 11, 2014 1:49 am

Ok,

It wasn't kernal length XML tweaks. As you know I've mentioned that mod for many years...and I had not noticed any problem with presets that didn't use that tweak either.


However there was something more specific that was doing something strange to my presets even when my own internal settings did not use a particular mod.
Give me a email. :)


Don't get me wrong, all these mods are useful! Getting back to the question.
I think it's possible a user could get it
wrong when copying settings and potentially ruin settings for other dev's presets...a possible reason for it not being supported.So it's probably important for us dev's to mention to make a copy of nebula reverb and 'do this mod for this library only' etc..

I mean I understand everyone's point of view on this thread and maybe acustica can make a warning for settings not being correct for dev's presets as suggested, maybe Nebula 4.
I am changing the website gradually over the next few weeks and I will get into more depth than I have done before about settings for my presets and why certain basic settings are important. I had previously tried to avoid suggesting using mods to xml In order not to confuse new users but some mods could be useful in some places for my presets.
User avatar
Tim Petherick
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 1349
Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2010 4:07 pm
Location: Bath , Uk

Re: Developers publish nebula.xml file on your websites?

Postby Cupwise » Tue Feb 11, 2014 1:49 pm

as great as nebula setups is, the fact is that it's a workaround to deal with major flaws in nebula. to me it seems silly that people have to make multiple copies of their .dll/xml files to be able to use the thing, and i bet that lots of people out there feel the same way. it contributes to the whole idea that nebula is this mysterious thing with a steep learning curve, and that feeling about nebula surely keeps some people away from it.

if nebula were more like other vsts out there, and you only needed one instance, itd be that much more simple. you shouldn't even need a separate instance for reverbs vs anything else. if the programs could dictate what the max lengths/settings, dspbuffer, etc, and if there was a better preset handling built in, something like nebula setups' functionality, where you could organize your libraries how you want, and they didn't take forever to all load into one instance, the thing would be that much more polished and simple to use. you can see plenty of threads out there where people are talking about how they left nebula because of it being too complicated to use. this is one of the reasons why.

blinking warnings telling you that something's wrong doesnt make it any less mystical, and it would take plenty of time and effort to code that in. and that would still be just as annoying. you get the blinking warning so now you have to go through your dozens of instances, opening each one, and trying the program until you find the right one? imagine if you had to do something like that with a waves compressor or equalizer. just spend several minutes loading multiple instances until you find the right one, every time you go to use it.
Cupwise
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 771
Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2010 2:03 am

Re: Developers publish nebula.xml file on your websites?

Postby kels » Tue Feb 11, 2014 4:56 pm

you can see plenty of threads out there where people are talking about how they left nebula because of it being too complicated to use. this is one of the reasons why.


In their great manifest, I guess people were warned that Nebula is not like any other VST. Honestly, it IS this manifest that brings me to Nebula.

http://www.acustica-audio.com/index.php ... Itemid=221

With ther Acqua things, they are releasing Nebula power to the mass but I will leave if Nebula 'regular' stop at any time in the future.

Back to the xml, sometimes I see devs differenciating between Nebula3.dll and Nebula3 Reverb.dll. A comparison of those files in binary mode shows that they are exact same file. Even the same source code compiled twice doesn't resist to this small test : --> fc /B "Nebula3.dll" "Nebula3 Reverb.dll"
kels
User Level XI
User Level XI
 
Posts: 166
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2013 8:43 am

Re: Developers publish nebula.xml file on your websites?

Postby jorismak » Tue Feb 11, 2014 5:21 pm

Yes, 'Nebula3' and 'Nebula3 Reverb' are the same. This has been stated (many times) before and is even on the FAQ page I believe.

Just as Nebula Setups, or your own personal copy of the DLL with a tweaked XML file, 'Nebula3 Reverb' is nothing but the exact same plugin with a tweaked set of parameters. In this case, the Reverb-version (in a nutshell) has much higher latency in exchange of an attempt to do multi-core support and properly handle large vectors (like long reverb tails).

Since that has such a high latency (working on blocks of 8192 or even 16384 samples at a time) you have the normal version that has a tweaked parameter set for short latency work (for example, if you want to monitor it during live tracking), mostly working with buffers of 128 samples at a time.

Isn't this what the whole topic is about? 3rd party devs supplying the tweaked XML file (just as Nebula3-reverb) or finding another solution.
jorismak
Member
Member
 
Posts: 344
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 4:49 am

Re: Developers publish nebula.xml file on your websites?

Postby kels » Tue Feb 11, 2014 7:06 pm

This has been stated (many times) before and is even on the FAQ page I believe ...............


I know, I know but ... I was refering to the thread below - and generaly speaking, sometimes one dev says that Nebula is better for him and another one says that Nebula Reverb sounds better ... I can bring more than a dozen links on the table for sure but have no time for that. With the previous binary file comparison, I just wanted to dissipate all doubts once for all (think of new users)

viewtopic.php?f=11&t=27425&hilit=timed+mode&start=32

So, it is even more important for devs to publish their xml, yes, since a part of their sound is in the xml.


I think it's possible a user could get it
wrong when copying settings and potentially ruin settings for other dev's presets...a possible reason for it not being supported.


Tim, thank you for that, could be a good reason.
kels
User Level XI
User Level XI
 
Posts: 166
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2013 8:43 am

Re: Developers publish nebula.xml file on your websites?

Postby kylen » Tue Feb 11, 2014 7:29 pm

jorismak wrote:Isn't this what the whole topic is about? 3rd party devs supplying the tweaked XML file (just as Nebula3-reverb) or finding another solution.

I think that was the original thought, seemed simple enough at the time but I think I've learned a lot in this thread. A better title at this point might be simply a request "Developers publish relevant nebula.xml settings". Meaning publish those settings that travel and make sense to set on the end-user side for sound and/or performance impact (and used by the Beta-Testers also!). Some developers are already publishing those settings. In addition Mr. Cupwise is thinking 'outside the thread' to what could/should be. Excellent forward thinking for a future release that I [end-user] am not qualified to discuss, very interesting topic though. :)
kylen
Member
Member
 
Posts: 234
Joined: Sun May 08, 2011 7:43 am

Previous

Return to 3rd party libraries

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests