New Ways of Doing Things, Quantum Leaps in Thinking.
It's all too slow like watching paint dry, year in year out
Get the software sorted out so functions and features can be easily implemented and released regularly at the same crossplatform time, not at just xmas time for Win and midi year for Mac.

+1

Though I have quite a lot of sympathy for where I think PGM presently are with the software.

About 15 years ago now I built an application primarily for me as a test harness for a design for a client. I used one of my preferred RAD (rapid applications development) tools to do that. When we went to approvals testing, I expanded the test tool to include automated test runs to speed up the testing process. Later the client needed to do some admin, so I enhanced the tool some more. Then we did some post-release tests to help find a temerature-related issue, and some linearity checking, and some version management, and a different flavour for a German client of my client, and so on. The RAD tool dropped out of popularity, though has since been resumed, but it's morphed quite a bit in the mean time, and sometimes does unexpected things. 15 years down the line I rather wish I'd used C/C++ and a graphics library, but in truth in the same circumstance I'd almost certainly have made the same decision. Despite the fact thatr many earlier features are obsolescent, I don't want to waste time and effort removing them. Neither the client, nor I, have a sane business model for a ground-up rewrite (it has only around half a dozen users), so I have an imperfect and over-cluttered application on which I really cannoty justify doing that work.

In some ways PGM and I are in similar positions. I cannot have a business plan to do the work, because there's no business. PGM very likely have difficulty formulating an alternative business model whilst working under the surface maintain their present business model.

I think you're right that then need a quantum leap or paradigm shift or fresh perspective or whatever other term one wants to use. I do though also see that that may be quite hard for them to do. It's a competitive world out there, they have a business to run, customners to support and staff to pay. It's a family business and very often those better support their customers and staff than do other types business.

It's notable that a number of other companies have changed, or tried to change, business model and the changes are sometimes met with anger from the customers ... I'm thinking particularly of the subscription model that some are trying. Selling the content rather than the tool has attractions, but I have to say that personally I can find myself irritated by the edless "now you need this sound" posts from companies that work that way.

My own experience of starting-over on something that has now become "not the best way I could have done this" has generally been good. For the new version I know better what's needed, know better how to do things, know better what works well and what would be better done differently. But BIAB is quite a large and complex application and ground-up revist would be pretty scary. I'll also add that I have only done ground-up revisits a few times and maybe I've been fortunate ... others may have found it very painful. I have only my own experiences from which to judge.

Yes it's all a dilemma. As I said before this future is most likely in the BBPlugin as it uses JUCE so you have the Win Mac version at the same time, it can be made to have all the current function contained within the crossplatform code rather than using the old Biab app in the background with all it's limitations. Having crossplatform RT RD etc.. installers using a crossplatform compressed and uncompressed audio format. This can be built on over time as you have a Plugin but also a Plugin Standalone so functions can be gradually transferred over to the JUCE crossplatform Plugin\Standalone.
The old Biab app should not be holding back the potential of the crossplatform Plugin\Standalone, that's craziness.
With JUCE you could have a Linux version also.

This is from the Sync VST for Biab thread buy is relevant to this thread.

That would be nice, but I'll not be holding my breath.

Funnily enough after my post I've just this moment started up that old application of mine again for some hardware-change testing.

If it's a Windows app chances are it will be ok but if it's a Mac app you have no hope as you would need to update the app every update and OS change for the rest of your life.
So many Mac programmers are being pulled out of retirement villages to reprogram their old popular apps so they work on this weeks apple.

I generally design the application on Linux, then polish for Windows as that's where most clients use things. I've written stuff that way that's been run on a Mac, but I've never actually used a Mac myself. I almost always start platform-agnostic if I can. There are lots of cross-platform compilable scripting languages. Selecting the right one is sometimes the trickiest bit. This particular one's in Tcl/Tk, built with vTcl and compiled using ActiveState's older tools.

I have a retired friend who writes Cobol (why use nasty concise C when you could write a whole novel ) and he's forever being asked to work on things ... usually banks, so usually excellent money.

This is a quantum leap in action:

Zoom++


Reaper is loading BBoutput.txt with the exact same tracks and sections from the track data instantly.
Giving total editing control to the user that Biab, RealBand and BBPlugin lacks.
Having a BBoutput.txt in C:\bb\Data with all the track data for all tracks will give a quantum leap
for those that want to work this way rather than forcibly holding users back in the past to work in a really old frustrating, creativity killing way ?

The problem must be the lack of universality in this addition.

Why do it ONLY in Reaper?

It's obvious that it's a huge leap forward but if PG does not validate it there must be reasons?

Nothing else works with wma. You could maybe do it with Studio One but you need wav.
How many users have Reaper compared to Biab or any other DAW ? The only thing it would do is sell more Biab if it was made to integrate with Reaper.

I have seen PG fight change so many times over the years but eventually down the track they realize and implement things. I remember users asking for a PDF manual to see all the things Biab can do before buying (this was when every single DAW had a PDF manual download), so I just uploaded one but PG deleted it, can you download PDF's now ?
It's the same deal with so many things over the years, once they wake up and see, then users get these things. It's just a very slow long drawn out process.......
They don't venture out of their little world in the corner of the internet to know what's going on in the outside world.
How many employees at PG are working day in day out in a studio environment adding extra instrument tracks to other session ? how many are working in a creative environment where a smooth easy non frustrating workflow is needed ?
0
If they were you would see it go way ahead because of experiential knowledge.
I think it's always been a "FUN" thing for them, that's why it had cartoon EGA graphics for so long.