I can check the x32 and x64 here, see what happens. Nay had told and sent me a copy, the modules show up missing but that was about all I knew in regards to how it responds on mac.
-s
Statistics: Posted by sephult — 31 Aug 2015, 19:37
]]>
Statistics: Posted by ceasless — 30 Aug 2015, 00:42
]]>
Hi Oli!
I am thinking it would it be better to create a "User Module" section in the add-ons section...and then have it scanned when modules are missing.
If you would open my Win x64 version under OSX then it would come up missing then correctly identify you have an OSX version in your local add-ons?
-s
I think the best would be to have a "user module" line in the settings/personnal folders so I am thinking it would it be better to create a "User Module" section in the add-ons section...and then have it scanned when modules are missing.
If you would open my Win x64 version under OSX then it would come up missing then correctly identify you have an OSX version in your local add-ons?
-s
- the user modules would be totally out of the Usine team juridiction
- I could add my new modules for testing prior to giving them away to the Usine community
Statistics: Posted by oli_lab — 23 Aug 2015, 11:01
]]>
Thanks for the reply, in application I am confused as to how to easily distribute an add-on that contains user-modules.
Even more so.....How do we distribute if the modules are "platform specific"
I am thinking it would it be better to create a "User Module" section in the add-ons section...and then have it scanned when modules are missing.
If you would open my Win x64 version under OSX then it would come up missing then correctly identify you have an OSX version in your local add-ons?
As long as you update your add-ons this should bring in all the modules needed properly.
I am thinking this would be the proper way. (Unless I am missing something).
In your folder description you indicated putting the modules in a Personal folder.
Is this your "patch library", you are indicating in the settings panel?
If this is the case, at the current moment a suggestion of moving the add-on modules to this folder might cure the missing module problem?
-s
Statistics: Posted by sephult — 22 Aug 2015, 17:47
]]>
I have a folder called Usine.
in that folder I have a folder with the current Hollyhock
and another folder called Personnal
in personnal I have a folder "user modules" where I keep all user modules !
Statistics: Posted by oli_lab — 22 Aug 2015, 16:34
]]>
Is this just because the Usine is not checking the add-ons folder when searching for the missing module?
(Thought just popped into my head).
-s
Statistics: Posted by sephult — 20 Aug 2015, 14:44
]]>
I assume he might already have, but the problem was that they were in separate distributions...I was curious if there was a single Multi-platform module.
I am not familiar with how the coding or compiling is, however I was wondering if there was something keeping them from being one entity instead of multiple modules specific to platform.
That would be awesome if you could do that, I love the high-gain modules...I am definitely a destructive editor.
The soft distortion and waveshaper are just not enough for me, without rounding.....I am a heavy Izotope Trash user...these Oli modules satisfy my distortion needs.
-S
Statistics: Posted by sephult — 20 Aug 2015, 01:17
]]>
If you can get the source code for the user modules to me, or into the hollyhock-grove on github ( https://github.com/ab5tract/hollyhock-grove ) I will compile them for OS X. It might take a bit, but I would love to help.
Statistics: Posted by ceasless — 20 Aug 2015, 01:14
]]>
LSeeD currently contains user modules, which only work with Windows x64.
Soon to be released is a minimal version which does not contain these, and has a reduction in audio effects for CPU performance.
Although this feature set is reduced, these features will be included as a modular effects set to compliment LSeeD Minimal.
-s
Statistics: Posted by sephult — 19 Aug 2015, 18:44
]]>