This is nicely done! I admittedly don't understand the point of Cardinal, though love that it exists.

This is nicely done! I admittedly don't understand the point of Cardinal, though love that it exists.

Thank you for listening, fc!!!

The main difference between VCV Rack and Cardinal is that the former allows closed source code, usually used for commercial modules. Nothing wrong with that in my book. I myself have purchased some and supported the developers. However, from a technical point of view, managing both open and closed source codebases make it more complicated because programmers from the main branch don't want to "break" any paid products by introducing changes.

Cardinal concentrates on the open subset, leaving out any commercial releases, so it could freely rewrite some portions. On a day to day basis, at least in Linux it is easy to see an improvement in performance, since anything with an integrated graphics card (like many laptops) was hurting since the migration to VCV2.

I usually keep an eye on the new creations for VCV Rack 2 on the Mac and run a more "conservative" set of modules on Cardinal under Linux. I think the Windows VST implementation is a little more stable... and free. Both projects keep a "positive" relation, so I think it's a win-win scenario.

[quote=fc]This is nicely done! I admittedly don't understand the point of Cardinal, though love that it exists. [/quote] Thank you for listening, fc!!! The main difference between VCV Rack and Cardinal is that the former allows closed source code, usually used for commercial modules. Nothing wrong with that in my book. I myself have purchased some and supported the developers. However, from a technical point of view, managing both open and closed source codebases make it more complicated because programmers from the main branch don't want to "break" any paid products by introducing changes. Cardinal concentrates on the open subset, leaving out any commercial releases, so it could freely rewrite some portions. On a day to day basis, at least in Linux it is easy to see an improvement in performance, since anything with an integrated graphics card (like many laptops) was hurting since the migration to VCV2. I usually keep an eye on the new creations for VCV Rack 2 on the Mac and run a more "conservative" set of modules on Cardinal under Linux. I think the Windows VST implementation is a little more stable... and free. Both projects keep a "positive" relation, so I think it's a win-win scenario. [img]https://media.giphy.com/media/m9SipXbTst4MgqQbY4/giphy.gif[/img]

Yeah, totally get the FOSS stuff from an ideology perspective. I wasn't clear in what I didn't get - it was the VST implementation part. Sorry for the confusion!

[quote=laguna][quote=fc]This is nicely done! I admittedly don't understand the point of Cardinal, though love that it exists. [/quote] Thank you for listening, fc!!! The main difference between VCV Rack and Cardinal is that the former allows closed source code, usually used for commercial modules. Nothing wrong with that in my book. I myself have purchased some and supported the developers. However, from a technical point of view, managing both open and closed source codebases make it more complicated because programmers from the main branch don't want to "break" any paid products by introducing changes. Cardinal concentrates on the open subset, leaving out any commercial releases, so it could freely rewrite some portions. On a day to day basis, at least in Linux it is easy to see an improvement in performance, since anything with an integrated graphics card (like many laptops) was hurting since the migration to VCV2. I usually keep an eye on the new creations for VCV Rack 2 on the Mac and run a more "conservative" set of modules on Cardinal under Linux. I think the Windows VST implementation is a little more stable... and free. Both projects keep a "positive" relation, so I think it's a win-win scenario. [img]https://media.giphy.com/media/m9SipXbTst4MgqQbY4/giphy.gif[/img][/quote] Yeah, totally get the FOSS stuff from an ideology perspective. I wasn't clear in what I didn't get - it was the VST implementation part. Sorry for the confusion!

Oh, no problem at all, FC! I was also on the verge of paying for the VST "PRO" version of VCV 2, but the poor performance on some average laptop machines held me back. When I tried Cardinal I had both a least resource-hungry app and VST integration. Haven't tried it back on Apple and Windows.

Back on VCV the collection of modules is of course bigger, though I'm feeling I'm quite covered with the Cardinal catalog. Hope you have a go at it

[quote=fc] Yeah, totally get the FOSS stuff from an ideology perspective. I wasn't clear in what I didn't get - it was the VST implementation part. Sorry for the confusion! [/quote] Oh, no problem at all, FC! I was also on the verge of paying for the VST "PRO" version of VCV 2, but the poor performance on some average laptop machines held me back. When I tried Cardinal I had both a least resource-hungry app and VST integration. Haven't tried it back on Apple and Windows. Back on VCV the collection of modules is of course bigger, though I'm feeling I'm quite covered with the Cardinal catalog. Hope you have a go at it :)

Sounds nice. I will have to try Cardinal on a Linux laptop.

Sounds nice. I will have to try Cardinal on a Linux laptop.

Oh, I think you should be pleasantly surprised. It's running flawlessly on my 2012's Lenovo Thinkpad x230 with 8 Gb of RAM

Thanks a lot for listening!!!

[quote=dr0ptpacket]Sounds nice. I will have to try Cardinal on a Linux laptop.[/quote] Oh, I think you should be pleasantly surprised. It's running flawlessly on my 2012's Lenovo Thinkpad x230 with 8 Gb of RAM :) Thanks a lot for listening!!!