Questions for the VSL Team:
Two major things have disappointed me with VSL and the Mac implementation (not counting the 64-bit thing) since I switched to Mac from PC two years ago.
1. The GUI interface interaction compared to the PC implementation. This was the first negative issue I had the day I switched. I understand having a separate server application on the Mac is the reason for the design but a real inconvenience and work-flow issue compared to the PC implementation. The fact that VSL just operates (navigates) differently than any other instrument interface on the market when using a sequencer host is troublesome especially if one is not using VSL exclusively. I understand that using Ensemble was an attempt to rectify this issue along with providing networking capability but for someone who wants to keep everything in their sequencer and only use the VI interface, adds another layer of potential issues, increased screen real estate, and redundancy considering that is the task of a sequence application -- to mix.
2. The license checking time at startup is different then any other instrument on the market. The penalty experienced for having larger VSL libraries is unreal. I know and have adapted basically out of necessity to go have a cup of coffee each time I start up. If I have to reboot several times through the day, the coffee eventually changes to beer. The point is, the user should not be penalized at the cost of software copy protection. It is just not moral that those of us who have invested $20,000+ in a library, should have to pay for a shoddy implementation of copy protection. After all, we spent the bucks --- we are not pirates!!!
My questions:
1. Does the VSL team plan to fix the VI interface to interact like any other instrument interface when hosted by a sequencer application.? Consistency and industry standards are essential (i.e. - not able to use the PLAY interface with VSL - MAJOR issue in both Ensemble and when using VI in the sequencer (Logic, Cubase & Pro Tools).
2. Does VSL have plans to adjust the path in how the software security is currently implemented considering all the end-user issues?
I would hope that the numerous work-arounds that have been suggest by the team and have been implemented on this end is only TEMPORARY and not a final solutions to some real concerning issues.