Common, Giancarlo! We all know that it possible to do it in nebula to load 4 bands of EQ like in nebula player. If it is working in free nebula that it can works in N4. It all depends only on your desire. I'm sure you can do it in one moment

 

ask Max ;)

 

No, you can't do it. The developer can do it.
There is a new format and the developer has more freedom. Old developers tied to old model are using older approaches. They could switch to new ones and even mix them (keep something in the old model and something in the new)
But here the request is different: the user should be able to do it. And here the answer: it is not possible, latency would go nuts

 

I REALLY resonate with this ^
Id say 90% of the plugins i bought (which is ALOT) i always pirated for a few months prior, to see how i really like it and if it gets in my workflow, i will always crack before i buy if possible and if i dont end up using it - ill just delete it, and if i like it i buy it...
R2R helped me support and buy plugins i would never discover or bother trying a trial

 

I'm half monkey not dog.

 

ok, I understand. It's all about the new NAT. It is sad that you broke the model when everyone can get NAT and make samples. I like how it works with NI Kontakt. Thanks to this we have great projects like www.pianobook.co.uk

Please, fix the meter. I think in this case I'm not asking much

 

Nat is a legacy, 32-bit application that we have no intention or resources to upgrade to new operating systems. It's a tool for developers, like us.
Lately it was creating more tickets than solutions, so we decided to make it available only to people who followed a workshop and learned how to use it, with all its limitations.
We, today, use that application, but we know how to bypass the problems. If you give something like that to a user, who may have paid for the commercial product, you're never going to convince them that that product is free and that it's "maintenance free" and that you can't get answers from technical support.
If you give a product to a user, he expects it to be fully functional.
One way could be to rewrite it for the new operating systems (it was written with a compiler that was discontinued many years ago), but we are fine with that, it works fine and I don't see why we should change it. I prefer to invest the time in other more urgent developments.
It is possible that in the future we will rewrite the tool and go back to the old model. Today it is unthinkable.
On a side note, today we almost don't use NAT to work anymore, we use it only as a quick preview. We directly compile the library in xml and json using internal tools written in python, and the latest developers (stedal) prefer to record the testtone using a common sequencer.
We have a command line nat that simply derives the kernels, and it all ends there. It would be a largely useless object for someone who doesn't know our tools, and it would be almost impossible to handle that knowledge via ticket.
Don't forget that all the third-party developers you know today learned how to do what they learned how to do because I patiently set out to answer all their questions years ago, often privately. I also ran things in a specialized forum, and answered about 180000 emails, counted from 2009 (it would be many more if I counted the early years as well).
So we are no longer talking about NAT, but rather about a programming language, which everyone could use. But for that you need a course, a structured course that explains everything in an orderly way. All this (even the use of a normal sequencer to record the testtone) is covered in our annual workshop. Lately it can be accessed via Zoom.

 

side note, the native instrument model doesn't allow all the freedom that we did, at least not in paid libraries.
It was never going to allow some developers to continue to sell libraries in a disconnected way with the platform, and if you know it a little bit, you'll know that they have all the things that we demanded for new developers: signing a contract, a business model where something goes to the platform manufacturer, and so on.
So when someone accuses me of something, I would think about it for a moment: in the end we left maximum freedom to everyone, without forcing, and without demanding anything.
The native instrument model actually works, and that's what we're doing with new developers. Probably a company other than ours would have sent a letter from a lawyer telling them to stop selling libraries outside of the platform. For example, on the Apple platform you can't do what you want, they make you sign a contract that's dozens of pages long, and if they say you have to give them royalties, they don't let you choose. You just accept it.
In all these years I have never received many thanks for having followed a path that could make everyone happy, at all levels. Every now and then someone who is not very well informed about the facts prefers to attack me, and I don't think this is right. We left a lot of time, a lot of freedom and we are still managing a product that was actually written in 2007.

 

Max is unable to share the code unfortunately to switch programs within one skin. G?

 

I can only see this as these people having double standards. They buy and accept apple terms that are brutal yet will go to forums and bash a company for not enforcing such rules, it makes no sense, no logic in it.
Also, stacking Nebula makes no sense from the way it is designed.
The only thing i would like to see is you working with Tim and Alex again on AA plugins.

 

Last edited: Nov 22, 2021

we proceeded in this way: at a certain point we made some developments concerning the new business model, leaving the old part unchanged. I'm not sure that buttons existed in the old nebula3, at least the structure is very different from what we use today. You can do so many things, but if you want to use them you have to sell the product in the new marketplace.
The reasoning is simple: if you want to use the new things (new structures, new graphic objects) you have to join the new model, which was developed at our expense (I mean economically). The old management ended in 2014 or so, and that world is identical to before. Previously it was all addressed at my expense and with my time. Later we added people to the team, and they obviously have to be paid for the work they do. Also the support team has a cost and so on.
So we thought to proceed so: who wanted to continue with the old model could do it, using the objects that were thought for the old model. We had developed the new model and made the new implementations (for example this year oversampling, timestretching and so on arrived, but there are dozens of features that have been integrated over time, for example multiband equalizers performed by a single instance and so on). New developments are available to developers who adhere to the new model, which provides a free player. It seems to me that they are doing well, we are paying their bills and things are working. Some of them are extremely satisfied, and have become full-time developers for us. We pay them, of course.

 

this is absolutely true.

As far as working with them, I think it's a matter of time.
We've never slammed doors in anyone's face, and we have some very reasonable people in the company.
I understand that there has to be a contract between the parties and that this has to come to an agreement, but if things are working (and well!) with the new guys, I don't see why they shouldn't work with the old guys.
Then I'll be direct, I leave it up to anyone to do as they please. It's no secret that some new developers are making money. They won't become millionaires, but this is also a niche market where musicians are starving. Our fee is fair, and I don't rule out that it might even decrease over time. We are not greedy. All we want to do is pay the people who work on the team, I mean pay them a salary.

 

This is the dream.

 

@famouslut
Can you stop down voting for no reason? This is equivalent to trolling imo.

 

I cannot believe that the CEO of Acustica Audio spends 2-3 days (on a weekend) on this forum digging himself deeper and deeper hole...

 

What hole?
All other CEOs feel too important to comment here.
Try to be less judgmental of people, we all live on the same planet.

 

Nobody has any idea who is posting unless they name themselves with their real name or for that matter who is watching.
These days it takes a lot of courage to do that and in the case of the developer, probably knowing he would cop a lot of flak for expressing his opinion. he may regret that now, but he had the guts to put himself out there which is a lot more than anyone on here not using their real name can say.
I include myself in that last comment BTW.

 

Last edited by a moderator: Nov 22, 2021

That is funny but probably not in the way you think I mean.
I looked through to see how many people here use their real name = NONE.
I looked at the names to see how many people would stand up with their own creation and defend it naming themselves outright on a public board = NONE.

Yeah he's a Gladiator and everyone here hides behind a handle and throws shit. Yes it's funny because he's the only one with balls.
I wonder how many people saying this on a forum would have the balls in person to say what they have to his face? I would be surprised if it was more than one. Maybe not even one.
Hilarious. Developer bashing? I mean really? You cannot dig a hole for defending "your baby". Making an ass of yourself? Definitely, but digging a hole for defending what you created? NEVER.
Hilarious.

 

lol. One thing's for sure. The only way to make this thread even more "epic" would be R2R stepping in

You can say that again. I can't wait for the next plot twist!

He also compulsive-downvote you? You're not alone bro..

 

That was a completely unrelated/harmless joke, to both your post and opinion..