Feature request: delay compensation

:)

My kneejerk reaction would be to agree, but given that they just rewrote the core compiler for ARM to support Apple silicon, it seems somewhat unfair to suggest that NI are not interested in developing Reaktor!

Just have to accept that one persons top 5 needed features are not the same as another's, and there are plenty of potential reasons why this one hasn't been added yet, particularly given that we (experienced builders who are also programmers) are a tiny minority of the user base!

My main motivation for taking part in this thread at all is to try and counter the "Reaktor is dead" rhetoric. It really is unnecessary, and it's potentially damaging - that kind of nonsense can be self fulfilling in the days of social media and google. So lets try to avoid that narrative please!

Devs can't have a road map if they're barely holding to their jobs.

It's my impression that after Schmitt left, management tried to bring the company to the kind of fast revenue you'd expect from a startup. This is absurd -NI is an established company, with an established line of products. Trying to outcompete new business from that position is doomed to crash. But it happens all the time. Stable business is both stressful and boring, so founders leave to try new things at a smaller scale, or retire, or both. Then the people in charge only care about revenue, which is ok per se, but it's a narrow perspective. Sometimes you're lucky enough to be bought by the japanese, who tend to not fall for this kind of nonsense. Sometimes you're very unlucky and you get bought by Avid.

Sometimes you're NI, and you feel suddenly threatened by a shiny open source platform. I found Blocks very concerning from the start. It was a nice idea -it wasn't nice to see the company completely focused in that direction. Reaktor is the wrong tool for that. An open architecture made of little boxes needs the internals to be very efficient. You exchange access to inner detail for mid-level flexibility. Blocks gives you accessible but very complicated internals with reduced flexibility and awful performance.

Reaktor is great for ad-hoc solutions to small-scale ideas. It's great for pure DSP, terrible for UI or interfacing in general. It's also incomplete, it lacks things that are basic for its core functionality. It's good for prototyping, but making big, complicated stuff with Reaktor is awful work for mediocre results. Reaktor is in the zone of Max for Live or Bitwig's Grid. That didn't feel very startup-ish in 2015, so they neglected its strengths to divert it out of its domain. Who could foresee that wouldn't work?

Now we're in the middle of a global crisis hitting this industry particularly hard, and NI churns out sample libraries like a vending machine. It's certainly not the time to expect a road map for anything, let alone Reaktor. I just hope it survives the storm, but with Francisco Partners at the wheel, I don't expect a change of course.

reaktor isn't going anywhere. it's a sizable part of NI's ecosystem, they have like, a dozen products that depend on it.

but if you look at the history of updates over the last 15 years, they invariably are linked to new products. we got the sine and modal banks, because there was prism and razor to sell. there were some overhauls made (mostly for the worse) to make reaktor player a thing. we got some new stuff with reaktor 6, but it pretty much all tied to blocks and an attempt to make that into a commercial marketplace. they updated to use on new apple hardware, because they have to, for the future. same thing with VST3.

tldr; we'll only get the features you want if they are necessary for an NI product. i don't blame the reaktor team for this, but at a corporate level, i wish NI were willing to invest more in reaktor.

This is how it is right here.

AS and VST3 in Reaktor was life support for a whole slew of products they currently ship, in some ways it worked out well, if a lot of those product had been VST, they would have just been discontinued (Absynth)