Hi, it makes me mad to do DAW plug-in hosting specifics studies each time I am reported an issue with a DAW, so I started a DAW specifics table that I make publicly readable and commentable (contributions are welcome), I’ll integrate contributions on the flow. I hope this will save time to plugin devs and ease troubleshooting.
Great initiative! I’ll do my best to add my findings to it.
It’s quite tricky to get it all together since JUCE tries to make a cross-format-host-platform one fits all solutions. and many hosts implement standards different or lack them so there are many areas to be added
I’ll start with adding:
For example recording state only reported by VST and isn’t supported by all hosts.
Sample-position is another example of tricky behavior.
Can you please rather add this as a comment in the linked doc? Maybe as a new column
What a good idea. It would be brilliant if this was linked from somewhere for all time … so we don’t forget about it!
Well, googling it already comes to this forum post. Otherwise, you can just bookmark it in your browser
Bookmarks are this place that links go to die
Studio One does latency compensation since version 1
These kinds or irregularities between hosts are exactly the kind of thing I’d like to write tests for in pluginval:
It would be great for example if Host A loads plugins on a background thread to write a “HostA” test that does this. Then you can automate testing of your plugins and find out exactly if this behaviour causes problems and exactly what part of the test fails.
Anouncing "pluginval" an open-source cross-platform plugin validation tool
Can this be a shared effort ? There are so many holes in this document.
i’d add a column about non-automatable parameter support if anyone would be interested
Please PM me your e-mail address, so that I can give you write access to the doc (everybody can already comment cells and we can integrate the suggestions)