-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi Justin, Justin Smith wrote: The custom GUI's are an optional extension, it's up to the host app (ardour etc) to decide if it wants to use the custom GUI or generate it's own. If the host app supports the LV2 UI extension it'll show the custom gui automatically. If you run ardour from the command line you should see something like this when the plugin is initialised: Found UI http://invadarecords.com/plugins/lv2/phaser/stereo at index 0 in: /home/fraser/.lv2/invada.lv2/inv_phaser_gui.so Did you build ardour & rosegarden yourself or are they from packages? What versions do you have installed?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi Justin, Justin Smith wrote: Ardour 2.8 supports LV2 gui's. Have you tried other LV2 plugins with GUIs? ie calf?

On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 2:57 AM, Fraser <fraser(a)arkhostings.com> wrote: Rosegarden does not support LV2 at all, so presumably you're just seeing the LADSPA versions of these plugins there. Even if it did support LV2, it couldn't support the GUIs because (unless it has changed dramatically since I last looked at it) the LV2 GUI extension is limited to a single host toolkit which Rosegarden does not use, namely GTK. Chris

On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 11:07 AM, Nedko Arnaudov <nedko(a)arnaudov.name> wrote: The Invada plugins look (from the screenshots) to have some active components such as meters. Would these work using the "external UI" extension? The basic question is: if LV2 support was added to Rosegarden using all of the latest available technology, would anyone notice any difference between Invada plugins hosted in Rosegarden and the same plugins hosted in Ardour? My impression is that they would, if the plugins have GUIs that use facilities that are not open to current external UIs such as those for DSSI. Chris

On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 11:36 AM, Nedko Arnaudov <nedko(a)arnaudov.name> wrote: That is a worthy promise; thank you. But what are the chances of new plugin developers being prepared to do that extra work themselves, as a general matter? (I realise that's a rhetorical question, or at least one you can't be expected to have the answer to. Fraser might have some thoughts, perhaps?) Chris

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi Chris, Chris Cannam wrote: Well my motivation was pretty selfish I guess. I pretty much limited myself to extensions on this page: http://lv2plug.in/spec/ rather than this one: http://lv2plug.in/docs/index.php?title=Main_Page as I figured they'd have the widest adoption and thus my plugins would run in the most hosts as intended. My main concern was compatibility. It wasn't that I thought the time investment in developing plugins using External UI Extension was too high, I just figured it was better spent on using what I can see is already utilised. That being said I'd much rather have a generic solution to UI's than a toolkit specific one, and for exactly the same reason (host compatibility). If, several months ago, I'd found myself having to choose between two extensions for UI I would have gone for the External UI as they both had the same learning curve (to me). regards, Fraser

Fraser &lt;fraser(a)arkhostings.com&gt; writes: I assumed you have better things to do ;) -- Nedko Arnaudov <GnuPG KeyID: DE1716B0>