Would you mind telling me when the MOD Desktop plugin version will be released?
Unfortunately I do not have that information yet. With @falkTX distancing, this is probably the project that suffers the most and we still need to figure it out.
1 Like
Thanks @gianfranco!
I’ve been thinking about this, but I don’t have a definitive answer yet.
The first thing to decide is whether DuoX support is a requirement. All my work has been developed and tested on a Dwarf, as it’s the only MOD device I own. I can certainly help with DuoX builds, but I have no way to test them myself.
As for the release process, I currently think that testing a complete firmware release is the best approach. Initially, I planned and prepared everything for incremental releases, introducing one change at a time. However, I’m now leaning towards releasing the full set of changes together. Realistically, how many people would run a “slimmed-down” firmware containing only a single feature just for testing?
In any case, I’m happy to help make this happen, but it will require support from both MOD and the community.
To make code review easier, I organized all changes into dedicated feature branches:
My proposal would be:
- Decide whether DuoX support is required.
- Have MOD review the changes in the feature branches.
- Decide which changes should be included (hopefully all of them).
- Publish an alpha/beta release and follow the same testing process that has been used successfully for the standard firmware releases.
That said, I’m open to other approaches as well.
One final point: at minimum I would really like to see the port grouping UI merged in the standard firmware. The backend support has already been included by @falkTX, and while the UI changes are relatively small, they provide a significant usability improvement.
Happy music’n’hacking!
8 Likes
I agree. Written docs are great for reference, but when you’re trying to understand more advanced routing, plugin chains, or real-world patch building, a video walkthrough can save a lot of trial and error. Even a few community-made “how I built this patch” style tutorials would be really valuable and could help new users get up to speed much faster.
5 Likes
I’m strongly considering buying a dwarf, so this reassurance is very comforting thanks!
I have been playing around with the desktop version to see how well I like it, and it’s fun. The NAM plugin and Cabinet Loader not having any patches by default is frustrating though. That’s going to be a pretty critical feature for a lot of guitar / bass players wanting to try before they buy, so if the web version had those working out of the box (and/or more of the amps in general) I think that would help drive hardware sales.
I’m going to have a play and see if I can get them working anyway though, so any tips welcome. Wish me luck!
2 Likes
Ciao @AndreaDelSignore
Thanks a lot for organising the branches and making the path so clear.
I can get you a unit of Duo and Duo X. If we can include at least the Duo X in the scope it would be fantastic.
I agree that the “full set of changes” approach is better, especially after this considerable time of build up. But, at the same time, I’d be very conservative about reliability and stability.
My biggest concern is code review. I can organise a lot of testing and can do some shallow review, but at the moment we do not have a person to really scrutinise it.
What do you think?
6 Likes
I was just packaging up my Dwarf this morning to trade it in at the music store after two years in the closet, when I thought I would check the forums one last time. I’m happy to have found this thread, and I appreciate the updates @gianfranco.
Speaking only for myself, the only thing I’m interested in is new firmware updates for the Dwarf. The existing plug-ins are fine for me and I have no use for the desktop app. I just want to see longstanding bugs like losing snapshots, programming difficulty, and audio glitches resolved so that I could program the Dwarf more productively and trust it at gigs.
Would it be reasonable to commit to a new firmware release once a quarter? I think this would demonstrate a commitment to the product that owners like me have been doubting. I’m not even opposed to a subscription model if that’s what it takes to fund it.
Once we see regular firmware updates that not only makes me want to use the product, it makes it worth my time to file bugs and suggestions again, because I can have confidence they will get looked at. As someone who has worked for TASCAM, MOTU, Avid, and EHX I would love to help improve the Dwarf.
1 Like
I couldn’t agree more!
2 Likes
As a DuoX owner, I really hope there would be a build for it.
4 Likes
Ciao @gianfranco,
It took me some time to respond because I wanted to get a clearer idea of what is needed to support the Duo X as well.
The good news is that I managed to adapt my scripts to compile and test starless on the Duo X too. The bad news is that supporting on-device editing will require a significant amount of work.
Here is a build I just prepared for the Duo X: Starless Duo X v0.0 alpha
Since I don’t have the hardware, it is completely untested. I don’t even know whether it boots. 
I think that having a Duo X would help speed up the first release, but I can also publish the images and let you and the community test them.
It’s my biggest concern as well.
I can assure you that I know what I’m doing. I’m a grey-beard programmer from the '90s 
, but throughout my 30+ years of programming I’ve worked mainly on accounting and business software in C#. That said, I’m also fluent in C, JavaScript, and Vala (although that’s an old story 
).
The less encouraging news is that I have a full-time job and a family, so the amount of free time I can dedicate to the project is not always consistent.
I contacted @falkTX, who helped me a lot when I started this journey, but he confirmed that his available time is limited. That’s unfortunate, because I think I could help him, and perhaps @AndyCap might be able to lend a hand as well.
That said, I do have a question.
Now that MOD Audio is evolving from a hardware company into a service-oriented one, is this software still considered a core asset? Could it potentially be maintained by the community?
Sorry if that’s a naive question; I’m genuinely trying to understand the long-term direction. If the software is indeed strategic, then I believe having at least one internal developer dedicated to it is essential.
Have a nice day.
Andrea
6 Likes
“code review” is why nothing changed for years I guess?
I think @AndreaDelSignore has the correct way of doing things, he has made some really useful changes that he wanted and then shared it outside of “MOD Audio”. Anyone that wants to use this then can install it and give it a go.
The moment he starts trying to add that to “MOD Audio” he needs paying, as simple as that.
Possibly he shouldn’t have started on the slippery slope of even making a Duo X version, I understand why, he is proud of what he has done (as he should be) but there the trap lies.
4 Likes
I’m glad to hear things are still whirring away here. In fact that prompted me to try and buy a dwarf, but the MOD store is saying “out of stock”. Is this permanent, or something temporary to do with the company move?
3 Likes
That’s temporary. Watterott is preparing to resume production of more units soon.
5 Likes
Good question, and one I’ve been thinking about carefully.
the Dwarf is an active product and MOD needs to be accountable for it.
But it is part of my belief that this needs to be somehow community driven and MOD’s role is to provide infrastructure and sponsorship.
I agree with @AndyCap and I do not expect that people work on MOD responsibilities without getting paid for it. But I know for a fact that what we’ve tried so far does not work. So we need to find something new.
I’m elaborating a proposal for how to make that sustainable, community involvement, structured testing, and some form of compensation for people doing real work.
More on that soon.
5 Likes
I don’t really know. I haven’t followed the entire MOD story, but I did notice some PRs—like yours—sitting untouched for a long time. I always assumed it was simply a matter of limited developer time rather than a deliberate decision.
But things are different now. We have an open hardware and software platform to experiment with, along with the ability to customize it, and for that I have to thank MOD Audio.
In my opinion, Starless is here to stay. It provides a way to innovate without many of the constraints that come with maintaining a commercial product.
At the same time, I believe MOD should have someone with the skills and authority to support its software products. If not to actively develop new features, then at least to review and integrate community contributions and produce hotfix releases when necessary.
@AndyCap, there are already some features in Starless that could greatly benefit the official platform if they were incorporated into an official release.
For example, the very first feature I implemented—the one that started this whole journey about a year ago—was support for port groups.
After a year, nothing has moved forward, and the reason is understandable: how can I ask plugin developers to update all their .ttl files to support a feature that exists only in an unofficial software version?
2 Likes
That is good news.
Reading back on what I said I should maybe have been a bit more diplomatic, I had had a few beers!
The way I see it now is that @AndreaDelSignore has the version that any user in the know will be using on their Dwarf and also has the repositories that other people have a chance of putting PRs into.
The Mod repositories are sort of set in stone, in the past getting any changes put in was nigh impossible, I’m guessing as we currently stand impossible?
I’m not sure this is a bad thing, so there is the standard Mod setup which can be delivered with new units and an alternative Andrea version with all his good stuff in.
The moment you try to bring the Andrea version into the mainline then it’s lots of extra work and responsibility for him.
1 Like
Yep, I totally agree.
And with this.
This is where it gets difficult though, the moment it is official then everything changes. It’s now a job not a hobby.
I missed this bit in the last reply.
I am pretty sure it was all to do with limited developer time, the developer time is even more limited now as I don’t think they have one working on this stuff much anymore?
I have been looking into the multiple controller stuff and there are quite a lot of changes that could be real show stoppers as they touch so much of the code, I’m already thinking there is no way Andrea will want to merge my changes as that is now putting extra work on you, we already saw how the midi changes caused issues that I had not tested.
The problem is it’s all time and effort.
That’s a great news for me also (still dreaming about a CPU upgrade)!
3 Likes
Ciao @gianfranco , do you think there is any possibility to see a nwe modo desktop release this year.
Last one was march 2024.
Thanks