So, when is 64bit VST3.5.x be released in FS?

[infuzion]

I'm interested in releasing a VST for KVR's challenge, but the due date is October, & exporting VSTs with only 32bit VST2.3 would be not effective due to ~60% of Windows DAW users use a mostly or all 64bit VST setup. Most of the reasons for this I find in other thread is that power users find 64bit programs are more stable, run faster, can address larger/more samples, &/or 64bit versions is all that is supported for their hosts.

Is there a time when at least a stable FS beta will be out with 64bit VST v3.5.x/2.4 exports please?

[CoreStylerz]

This is the feature that will convices me to use FS. If not, it does not make sense for us... Plugin developers needs x64 and more new VSTi version. (2.4 for many hosts, 3.x for steingberg).
VST 3.5.x can export both (2.4 and 3.x) but surely in FS this will be make as twice compilers dll.

[infuzion]

New poll on KVR: http://www.kvraudio.com/polls.php
Hard to say what % of Windows use 64bit OS; OSX users (20%) skew the numbers.
Noteable; ~20% of VST users prefer VST3.

I must reiterate; DSPR MUST have VST3; obviously VST2.4 is taking a while. If the time needs to be taken, just go VST3 & use the SDK to back port VST2.4 please. Or else you'll be behind once again.

[stw]

Since i got a lot of demands for 64bit support and am a bit lost in digging old threads to find an official statement beyond all the rumors i bump this thread and kindly ask again:

@support: Is there any timeline or any serious plan at all to implement 64bit support? If yes please submit any details.

[VPDannyMan]

I believe that adding 64 bit support would be a very difficult thing to do so I do not believe it will happen any time soon. What happens with all the ASM window and SIMD.. Does that or will that work the same? I don't know, maybe we loose the ASM window?

[MyCo]

I believe that adding 64 bit support would be a very difficult thing to do so I do not believe it will happen any time soon. What happens with all the ASM window and SIMD.. Does that or will that work the same? I don't know, maybe we loose the ASM window?

You mix "64bit support" with double processing. 64bit support means that the plugin can get loaded natively on 64bit hosts. 64bit processing (double processing) can get done with 32bit plugins as well... and I don't think that this would be a huge problem for the devs to implement (double processing primitives already exist).

[ccpurno]

Yes, Native 64bit VST host support is rather important.
Now loosing quite a bit of sales opportunities because people go strictly 64 bit.

(Personally never get customer request about VST3 or VST 3.5 though)

Anyway, I have confidence Malc will be working on 64 bit Host support soon...

CC

[support]

We wanted to look at this as one of the first things after version 3 was out and settled. We still have a few things to look at in that regard (the ruby dll issue is one such issue). Once we have version 3 where we want it we can then turn our attention to things like 64bit.

VST3 is not something we are likely to be looking at in the short term. Those stats show that the vast majority of people are still on 2.4.

[VPDannyMan]

VST3 is not something we are likely to be looking at in the short term. Those stats show that the vast majority of people are still on 2.4.

Does Cubase Nuendo, and Wavelab not only use VST 3?

[trogluddite]

Does Cubase Nuendo, and Wavelab not only use VST 3?

IIRC only VST3 + plugins are guaranteed to work - but most other do, except for the ones that don't!

Steinberg only add pointless new bloat to the VST spec precisely to make life damned awkward for small developers, and make their users buy new plugin to replicate the old ones that don't work any more. They are the only ones insisting that prior versions are deprecated - none of the other major developers have gone all VST3 so far as I know.

We should stick with VST2.4 and start a campaign to stop Stienberg throwing their weight around instead - they just want to remind all the other children who's ball we're playing with, because they're miffed that there are better, far cheaper alternatives to just about all their products.