Just putting it out there: Would love to see an Auv3-host module <3
Its planned :)
Woah really?! That’s gonna be something else!
It will be quite funny and a bit troublesome... e.g. You can load Drambo to Drambo. Projects containing AUv3 will not work, when Drambo runs as AUv3. (inception :)
Finally I’ll be able to stop using Garageband 😁
wow , giku is breaking all the rules of “that can’t be done” haha . i feel like drambo does all the things we have been told you cannot do in ios, i love it! what an amazing thing drambo is and will become
Whaaat!!!! Are there no limits? This is crazy talk. Yeah sounds good. What about P-Locks though? Would that even be possible?
Ok that'll be cool, yeah then it could run Mozaic scripts etc, a good reason to use standalone mode then :)
Cool move looking fwd to seeing that.
Wouldn't this eat up a large amount of development time?
Of course, being able to include AUv3 in our own creations could be like modules on steroids but when I see how often developers of AUv3 hosts have to deliver fixes for whatever odd AUv3 plugins plus fixing preset management and parameter automation issues, I can imagine this can considerably slow down the development of new Drambo core modules, sequencer features and 1000 other features that have already been requested.
I have watched quite a number of AUv3 compatibility issues that have been a source of some long discussions between different developers ("my implementation is correct, you gotta fix yours 😅").
It's not that we cannot use AUv3 with Drambo now - Drambo can be both generator and effect so in a modular host or any DAW with an AUv3 effect chain and routing buses, a lot of awesome combinations are already possible.
I might be too pessimistic about it but you most certainly don't "just add" AUv3 support and you're done.
I gotta say this was my first concern. Obviously it’s down to Giku to set priorities but for me this is icing on the cake stuff. I’d prefer core Drambo functions beefed up before the cherries on top. If it’s a couple a years down the line so be it.
Yes, AUV3 module would be nice but definitely a pain in the neck to troubleshoot as @rs2000 has stated above.
Hosting several instances of Drambo and running them through AUV3 plugins would likely satisfy most needs anyway albeit maybe not as elegantly.
I think as a community of users we should try and distinguish between having
A. short attention span and needing for new stuff on daily basis
B. actually needing a functionality for a recurrent purpose purpose that has no easy workarounds.
I’m not saying it shouldn’t be done but please, choose wisely.
based on experience during NS2 development i'm afraid adding AUv3 host module will significantly slow down development of all other areas of Drambo because of endless queue of issues caused by AU plugins bugs ... my vote would be to postpone this as much later as possible.. it's blackhole for development time...
just saying, based on my real-world experience :-)
i know this is an old thread but I want to leave a +1 for this plan. Being able to host external effects as part of the signal chain - even inside a delay loop or whatever - and use external instruments as oscillators... wow. And if p-locking them was possible too it’d open up a whole world of possibility.
i know some people will say “host it in a daw and you can do most of that” but having a single input and output is really not the same as being able to use those things as patch components.
Do you prefer to use Drambo standalone?
So far, yes... Still early days for me tho. I've only had it a couple of weeks.
I can understand the desire for AUv3 plugin support, but I'm sure I wouldn't have done half as many patches to re-create existing AUv3 plugins if it was available.
I find it even more fun to build my own FX and synths.
Although zMors Modular can load AUv3 plugins, I've never really used it... but that's me 😊
Ugh. I'm having flashbacks to what happened to stability and to forward progress with Modstep when they decided it would be a good idea to host plugins.
FWIW, I hope Drambo being an AUv3 Host is way down on the feature list. I'd rather @giku focus on making Drambo the best Midi Sequencer around with Multi-Out functionality and get people like SpiderIce, Brice Beasely and others to make amazing jaw dropping patches for the built in Synth.
Drambo is so wonderful because it is so focused...and I am fine using it inside of AUM or AudioBus or Stand Alone to make it do what I want...
Please...don't go off that cliff that is AUv3 Host support...it could make things happen to the dimensional portal Drambo has opened for me and others. We definitely to want to compromise the integrity of this door that is now open to us :)
Seems like a polarizing feature judging from responses! Personally, I'm really looking forward to it. I often use the VCO auv3 from iVCS3 in synth projects. Having the ability to build that into a project directly, rather than in an instrument slot would be big for me. Also, integrating miRack and eventually Audulus 4 modules into a Drambo project is going to be mind melting.
@aleyas I think that the mixed responses come from the many mixed experiences we had to make when it comes to stable AUv3 support. I bet that nobody would argue about the usefulness of AUv3 inside Drambo standalone and if it was just a module the developer had to add then everything would be good to go.
But unfortunately it's not. The lack of examples and "complete" documentation in regards to how an AUv3 should act and communicate with its host has led to different truths out there and when people have issues, they will start complaining of course. They want every AUv3 to work. Naturally.
And then they will wonder why they cannot use their Drambo patches inside the Drambo AUv3 anymore.
I'm with @echoopera on the subject of making Drambo the best MIDI sequencer out there so people who can't get friends with trackers can still live their creativity inside Drambo one day.
Personally, nice to have but I dont need this
drambo aufx will do 8 ch of audio
I want more drambo modules, :)
much higher on my priority list
At a glance AUv3 hosting sounds like it would be incredible. It’s not like there would be much functionality that couldn’t be achieved working in a dedicated host though. Thinking about it, sounds like a complete PITA for @giku. I’m sure he could pull it off but I would absolutely put it at the bottom of the pile, there’s way more important stuff that needs to happen. Personally I think it would dramatically shift the focus of Drambo, not necessarily in a good way. What’s wrong with working with MIDI and multi outs anyway?
Might almost be better as an entirely separate fork. Drambo AUv3 host. I’d imagine it would pick up a lot of people who aren’t going to touch Drambo original. Although you’d end up being able to host Drambo in it and would probably create some sort of rift in the fabric of space/time.
Drambo in drambo in drambo
is to much Malkovich for my taste
TBH, I so wish that @giku would for once say "No, that won't happen" and not please us all with "it's on the list!" for every request :)
Yes, AUv3 support would be nice to some standalone users.
But being a one man band why spend all the wicked effort involved in creating a stable AUv3 host when there are so much evidence out there on how difficult it is - and plenty of great hosts already. Sure, having AUv3 plugins in the "rack" would be cool but multi-out kinda gives a lot of that anyway unless you absolutely HAVE to put blackhole before Drambo's VCA.
There's just so much more interesting and amazing stuff on the "todo list" that would benefit the greater Drambo community (sequencer features, piano roll, multi-out etc etc) and not just the few that would like Drambo to replace their DAW/AUM setup.
@Peblin Never said it's on top of the list ;)
Nevertheless .... it would be just an invisible option. People who won't use it would not even notice this :)
@Peblin I've said "It won't happen" many times @lala could you confirm this? :D
But why the hell should I block such a nice idea?
btw. piano-roll won't happen
I wonder if an FX send/return loop would be possible with multi out? Send audio out to the host, through some FX, and then back into the signal chain... 🧐