DJGroove
The Holy Grail is upon us my brothers. Drink and we shall be merry. Love life to the fullest,
AND LET"S GET THIS F****G PARTY STARTED RIGHT!
AND LET"S GET THIS F****G PARTY STARTED RIGHT!
Posté Tue 01 Jul 03 @ 12:37 am
androidi
VDJ = Atomix 2.5?
I see there's a 2 good new feature made, otherwise it looks very much like atomixmp3 2.5 ? If the beat grid works as advertised it's very good feature and the simple to incorporate bpm tap is good addition. In 3.0 (VDJ 2.0?) i hope the program is written from scratch in some higher level language (C#?) and made modular and less time consuming to incorporate new ideas.
I see there's a 2 good new feature made, otherwise it looks very much like atomixmp3 2.5 ? If the beat grid works as advertised it's very good feature and the simple to incorporate bpm tap is good addition. In 3.0 (VDJ 2.0?) i hope the program is written from scratch in some higher level language (C#?) and made modular and less time consuming to incorporate new ideas.
Posté Tue 01 Jul 03 @ 1:05 am
DJ Walkers
Stop complaining before you try it!
it HAS been completely rewritten!
it HAS been completely rewritten!
Posté Tue 01 Jul 03 @ 1:22 am
Phenryll
VDJ 1.0 is NOT Atomix 2.5, 3.0, xx.xx
Posté Tue 01 Jul 03 @ 6:48 am
ikke
Mmm, I guess it's not really a good idea to write Atomix or VirtualDJ or whatever in C#, altough I'd love to see it like that (C# is my language, see?). Why not? Quite easy: C# only runs on the .Net CLR, which isnt fast enough at all to run realtime audio software (well, a wave player with some simple effects IS possible, but more complex things using FFTs etc will be, well, quite CPU-consuming). The best thing is: Atomix in Assembler LOL (altough I tought I had read somewhere some parts WERE written in assembler... Not shure).
About making it modular: there you're completely right IMHO. But C++ is OO too...
Enabling people to write plugins in so-called high-level languages (Why is C# a "higher-level-language" than normal C++??? Please tell me), and especially .Net components (not Java, because, sorry, Java is really toooo slow :( ) would be great (well, it wouldnt oppose me to the problem how to get these damn CCWs etc to work :( still no reveal :( ).
Just my .02
Greetz, Ikke
About making it modular: there you're completely right IMHO. But C++ is OO too...
Enabling people to write plugins in so-called high-level languages (Why is C# a "higher-level-language" than normal C++??? Please tell me), and especially .Net components (not Java, because, sorry, Java is really toooo slow :( ) would be great (well, it wouldnt oppose me to the problem how to get these damn CCWs etc to work :( still no reveal :( ).
Just my .02
Greetz, Ikke
Posté Tue 01 Jul 03 @ 9:29 am
androidi
Well i wouldn't know if it is completely rewritten or not. But it's very unlikely that it has everything coded again from scratch cause i got the impression from someone who bought it already that it still has only short looping, instead that you could loop any range. I do believe the sound core has been worked on after so many complains about the quality in this forum.
For ikke: I said 'higher level' cause you can use it interchangeably with visual basic for example, and i'm sure you know one of the major differences with VB and C# is that in C# you can use pointers, like in c(++), if you want/have to. So i think it's a higher level language, which allows you to do almost everything you can do in c++, but not as simply as in c++. Anyway, applications like Atomixmp3 could be done mostly in C# and partly use assembler and c++ when absolutely necessary. C# obviosly imposes some overhead when doing stuff not incorporated in the framework, and cause the DirectX9 doesn't yet fully support C#, that might also make it better to wait until coding such application in C#. But i honestly believe that eventually it would be perfectly feasible to do this kind of app in C#, only negative thing really would be that it wouldn't be easily portable to other OS's, but cause sclavel isn't likely interested in other OS's, i thought C# would be a good choice, eventually atleast.
For ikke: I said 'higher level' cause you can use it interchangeably with visual basic for example, and i'm sure you know one of the major differences with VB and C# is that in C# you can use pointers, like in c(++), if you want/have to. So i think it's a higher level language, which allows you to do almost everything you can do in c++, but not as simply as in c++. Anyway, applications like Atomixmp3 could be done mostly in C# and partly use assembler and c++ when absolutely necessary. C# obviosly imposes some overhead when doing stuff not incorporated in the framework, and cause the DirectX9 doesn't yet fully support C#, that might also make it better to wait until coding such application in C#. But i honestly believe that eventually it would be perfectly feasible to do this kind of app in C#, only negative thing really would be that it wouldn't be easily portable to other OS's, but cause sclavel isn't likely interested in other OS's, i thought C# would be a good choice, eventually atleast.
Posté Tue 01 Jul 03 @ 12:40 pm
ikke
C# not portable? www.go-mono.com
Yes in C# one can use pointers, but if you read the language specs: strictly discouraged!!! BTW: Why is using pointers in C++ easier than in C#? The syntax is +- the same, not?
Altough: I run Atomix on a PIII450, which runs fine because its a legacy Win32 app. If it'd run under .Net, it wouldnt run smoothly: even firing up my VS.Net (which has partly been written in .Net) takes some minutes... :S
Greetz, Ikke
PS With these posts, I don't try to break your toughts down or something!!! I'd just like to have a decent discussion around this. I agree 100% on some of your points!!!
Yes in C# one can use pointers, but if you read the language specs: strictly discouraged!!! BTW: Why is using pointers in C++ easier than in C#? The syntax is +- the same, not?
Altough: I run Atomix on a PIII450, which runs fine because its a legacy Win32 app. If it'd run under .Net, it wouldnt run smoothly: even firing up my VS.Net (which has partly been written in .Net) takes some minutes... :S
Greetz, Ikke
PS With these posts, I don't try to break your toughts down or something!!! I'd just like to have a decent discussion around this. I agree 100% on some of your points!!!
Posté Tue 01 Jul 03 @ 2:37 pm
Jim Nordic
androidi:
I too have the VDJ. And you do not only have short looping. I think you can actually loop any number of beats. I've only tried up to 64 beats. You can also zoom out and in the beat-visualization. There are better scratching abilities... even scratching using a web-camera.
The "problem" is that the default skin is not using all the VDJ-feature to it's full potential, especially looping. But you have some new effects that are quite nice.
The point is that VDJ is highly tweakable to suit ones own needs. And as mentione above... easier to upgrade in the future (adding new features).
- Jim
I too have the VDJ. And you do not only have short looping. I think you can actually loop any number of beats. I've only tried up to 64 beats. You can also zoom out and in the beat-visualization. There are better scratching abilities... even scratching using a web-camera.
The "problem" is that the default skin is not using all the VDJ-feature to it's full potential, especially looping. But you have some new effects that are quite nice.
The point is that VDJ is highly tweakable to suit ones own needs. And as mentione above... easier to upgrade in the future (adding new features).
- Jim
Posté Tue 01 Jul 03 @ 2:41 pm
Jim Nordic
Another great feature is that you can beatmatch your desks to an external soundsource... by hooking up cd player or a turntable to the line in of one of your soundcards and you get a beat-visualization of that sound.... which you then can beatmatch to.
Sorry for the less than perfect explaination.
- Jim
Sorry for the less than perfect explaination.
- Jim
Posté Tue 01 Jul 03 @ 2:53 pm
androidi
Sorry, i must have misunderstoon reading someones post at vdj forum, glad to hear the loop now works for longer perioids!
ikke: well there's no point probably to discuss about using C# more, and using pointers is easy like you said, but have you tried interop(erating) with windows components and such, which would be required if you were to fully use directx currently in c# (for example). What i meant earlier was that this kind of thing might be required if you do atomixmp3 or similar now in c#, and 1) it's rather complex 2) theres the overhead - compared to if you do it just in c++ .. But as you probably figured already, i just thought that most of atomixmp3 functionality could be made in c# without the more complex interop stuff. But i think there's no point to discuss this much further cause if sclavel was a c# enthuastic or would find it give some additional benefit regarding vdj/atomix, he would probably have already moved to c#.
As to why you probably find .NET slow, is that it's a large framework as you know, and cause it's not yet fully integrated into windows, there's lot of dll etc to load when using .NET apps. I believe this will be changed in future windows OS's and make using c# apps much more transparent than it is now.
ikke: well there's no point probably to discuss about using C# more, and using pointers is easy like you said, but have you tried interop(erating) with windows components and such, which would be required if you were to fully use directx currently in c# (for example). What i meant earlier was that this kind of thing might be required if you do atomixmp3 or similar now in c#, and 1) it's rather complex 2) theres the overhead - compared to if you do it just in c++ .. But as you probably figured already, i just thought that most of atomixmp3 functionality could be made in c# without the more complex interop stuff. But i think there's no point to discuss this much further cause if sclavel was a c# enthuastic or would find it give some additional benefit regarding vdj/atomix, he would probably have already moved to c#.
As to why you probably find .NET slow, is that it's a large framework as you know, and cause it's not yet fully integrated into windows, there's lot of dll etc to load when using .NET apps. I believe this will be changed in future windows OS's and make using c# apps much more transparent than it is now.
Posté Tue 01 Jul 03 @ 10:53 pm