I’m curious what this means in practice… does this mean simply that the VST 2 SDK will no longer be available, that existing hosts and plugins who already have the SDK can continue to use it? What are the implications for new plugins and new plugin developers?
I coming at this from the point of view of a host developer who currently only supports VST 2 - primarily because nearly all the plugins my customers need are all available in that format. Although I’ve implemented VST 3 support I’ve not released it due to some integration issues with other features in my product and just haven’t had the time or need to revisit it yet.
My guess is that the main impact of this announcement will be that over time more and more plugins will be only available as VST 3 and therefore supporting this in my host will become more important?
Removing the VST2 SDK parts as a subset of the VST3 SDK would mean so, practically, since the VST2 Wrapper depends on it. I wonder what it means for the recently added AAX Wrapper though as it is widely based on the VST2 Wrapper?
Not necessarily so. There are plenty of frameworks that build on VST SDKs but do not include them due to licensing. VST3 can still maintain vst2wrapper without including VST 2.4 files .
We will continue to support the AAXWrapper…
In a next update we will refactor the Wrapper classes…
VST2 Wrapper still a part of the SDK…
For people having already signed the license agreement for VST2 it will be possible to continue to create VST2 plug-Ins, for new developers from the 1st of October this will be not possible anymore.
Would you be interested in offering an optional API in the AAX Wrapper that would allow developers to support AAX DSP if they want to (given they want to go through the hassle of arranging HDX hardware and CCS licenses)?
One could make do with an allocatable private data block, some kind of interface to AAX’ DirectData API to read/write data, a facility to report the names of the Process function symbol and TI dll and the cycle count for each sample rate. I can sketch something in case there is some type of interest.
Of course, everyone would still have to go through porting their processing/implementing their DSP communication themselves. I’m asking about providing a basic facility as outlined above.
.