Jump to content

Your Ad Could Be Here

Very Impressive New Daw.


Recommended Posts

After a two or three year haitus from music I've suddenly started taking on new projects again and had to go through the painful process of updating most of my software to stuff that will run on a 64bit PC.

 

I thought I was going to have to fork out two or three hundred dollars for a DAW.  I used Cubase and Pro Tools before, which are very expensive to obtain legally.  I decided to try Reaper 4.7 just out of curiosity and found that not only did it have the functionality of my old Cubase and Pro Tools systems but in fact it was considerably more advanced than them in some areas with them being old.

 

And it was only forty quid, which includes updates till the end of version 5.  For anyone looking for a DAW it's well worth checking out.  It's not a cheap compromise, it's an excellent piece of kit.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just picked up Mixcraft Pro Studio 7 for $164 (American).  Absolutely love it.  Was using Ableton Live Lite 9. Much easier for me to use. Has some great midi instruments.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Lots of fanboys here for Reaper. Mixcraft seems to come in a close second. I guess I don't understand this totally. I would rather spend a little more money for a better DAW even if I had to save for awhile. Different strokes for different folks :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't realize the term "fanboy" was considered offensive. My apologies. I was under the impression  

that it simply mean't you are a "fan" of what you use. I have downloaded and used several versions of Reaper. It isn't bad per se, but there are much more efficient DAWs out there. I added a smilie because that was how I felt. I must reiterate I didn't know "fanboy" was offensive. This website goes across several different cultures and it is very easy to misunderstand. I won't allow myself to become offended by your words. I think you misunderstood me.

There really are better daws and it isn't just the one I use. I was attempting to rationalize why someone who puts a lot into their music would go for the choices made. I am also wondering why we have so many people concentrated here who only use two daws? If this is purely about economics then you must admit that at some this was your primary rational over workflow and user friendliness.

Nothing wrong with a choice based on price If it does what you need, but trust me there are better ones. I would ask you the same question. How many of the others have you used? I don't mean 10 year old versions either. I mean recent releases. Pro Audio hasn't been around for eons. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Starise

just focus in on the DAW points you raise, and the general discussion point of better DAWs... "Better" is a subjective concept when it comes to like... Much of what is liked or not is hard to qualify. Sure things can be measured with detailed surveys but they are still measuring something that is subjective.

You mention there are better DAWs than reaper... But much of that is subjective according to your own usage preferences and usage scenarios. Popularity is not always a measure of technically better either... Think Betamax and VHS video recorders. beta was better, VHS had a better marketing campaign.

The truth is DAWs are much of a muchness. What we like generally comes down to workflows and usage scenarios.

What is hard for people to get their head's around is the perspective of others. It is something I have had to learn as a designer of websites and as a software designer.... Level of abstraction. 

Flexibility breeds complexity. Reaper appears harder to use because it is very flexible. With every parameter of control, another menu option is born. So at one end, if we have a DAW that automates all mixing and mastering and replaces that with one button that said "mix and master" some people would be happy with the results and love the simplicity of an interface that does exactly what it says. Then at the other end of the scale we have a DAW that allows you, the user, to tweak absolutely everything. It has a menu system that runs to 20,000 menu items... But it allows you almost limitless control. For people whose like that level of control and who are perfectly happy digesting a manual that is a Gigabyte in size.... That suits their workflow and their attention to detail... But for others it would be the nightmare system from hell.

This is in essence what we see here. I've it is a preference that is very little to do with price if at all.it is to do with how we like to interact with our recordings and the level of control we have.

I am not a reaper user. I have used it, but found the interface too unwieldy for my preferred usage scenarios. I have used Cubase, Sonar, Protools, even fruity loops, reason and others. Each has pros and cons. Even taking Cubase and comparing it with Sonar, I loved CAL file algorithmic mix tools, but something like that didn't exist in Cubase at the time. i could understand that another engineer might not use CAL and that it was just extra interface complexity for those that didn't use it (I've many Sonar users and all Cubase users and all Cubasis users etc.) still, for me, it was a selling point.

Reaper gives a ton of flexibility to its users. For those that like simple, easy to follow flows that give them the key flexibilities...  Cubase exists. For those that like similar but a bit more control, Sonar and Protools etc exist. For those that like flexibility in almost every way, Reaper delivers that. In spades. The fact is, most Reaper users will still only ever use 20% of the interface options at best.... But they love that should they need control over something expected... It is there to be used.

It is more nuanced than that too. It has other benefits too, for those who see them as benefits. Just remind yourself that the simple, limited, less flexible interface can be just as unappealing and hard to comprehend a desire for, for those who don't desire that.

I have a very good understanding of music technology at a technical level. My degree was all about designing hardware, software and mixed systems for use in music. So I appreciate that much of the features I would use, others will find a hinderance. Hell most are likely to be completely unaware of the concept, let alone the justification for wanting some of the features I like. When I worked as a recording engineer I needed to know details that as a producer I did not care about. Behind a recording engineer is more about technically doing something, while production is more about the end result than how it is achieved.

At a guess, Steve was probably pushing back against a feeling of being dismissed, or trivialised by assumptions that price was the key differentiator and that there is indeed a right answer to the question "Which is the best DAW?". Just a guess.

You got it right at different strokes for different folks, but perhaps you could have asked why Reaper fans liked it, why they chose it, rather than assuming it was the benefit you saw? I have no axe to grind here. I know you want to help others and do have a genuine interest in improving understanding. I am also sure you would not intentionally cause offence. I am highlighting this, as much as anything else, because rigid thinking should be challenged to encourage creativity, invention and learning. Lack of the ability to understand perspective comes down to knowledge and insight, but those are gained by a process of discovery and enlightenment. If we fail to see another's perspective (not the same as agreeing with their conclusion!) that speaks more of issues with our process of discovery and enlightenment than anything else. :)

Edited by john
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi John,

I like the new site BTW !! 

In hindsight there were several things I should have done differently here. The first was to come here to a thread where the guy is stoked about Reaper and mention that I think there's something better. Secondly, maybe my leaning more toward economic reasons for using Reaper isn't entirely accurate, although I believe it is in many cases.

I did sincerely question why someone would make that choice over the others, especially when the person " Has used many different daws" In asking this question I arrived at the economic part of it which is tempting if you don't have a lot of money to spend on it.  I was opening it up for discussion on the why a person would do this and I sincerely am trying to understand, but I didn't get many of those answers because I ruffled feathers. I think the offense got in the way of me actually hearing a reason or two from a Reaper user. I am convinced that there are others that are better all around DAWs, but that's me and I'm open to being unconvinced :). I doubt you'll unconvince me, but I might at least see a few reasons , as you say, from another perspective.I might at the very least, understand it from another perspective.

I believe you have helped me to see a different perspective here in that there are users who want simple or more streamlined and others who want a higher level of control...all very valid points. I can't begin to tell you how many times I have opted for something that seemed like it would work, but later I ended up buying something better because the thing I bought didn't get me all the way there. I could have spent that money on a system that allowed me to expand as I expanded. Instead I spent more money because I had to replace the thing I bought.  If a beginner has the goal to expand  I would not recommend Reaper, but that's me and this is only my opinion.Neither would I ever recommend Mixcraft because there are limitations to future expansion. I don't want to see anyone in the position of fighting their software in the future. To learn a new system is time consuming. And it isn't always what a thing will or won't do , but how well it does this or that. Two hours .vs 10 minutes is a huge time saver.

So this is how I perceive it to be, if a person buys brand x and it's a higher ended program , in almost every case a person doesn't need to know all of this at once, so there's no need to be intimidated.Most DAWs have a basic setup so that a user can simply hit a record button and be on the way. Then after some time goes by the user decides that they need to add /identify and color only the  busses and use side chain compression, no problem. Then they want to add a soft synth, only in some programs this is totally proprietary, and the better DAWs have decent soft synths already . Next they need to export to several file types and change tempo halfway through a song...the more things they eventually need the better a more extensive program looks.In my opinion this is why it pays to start off with the best you can if a person has goals to expand their setup. If Reaper can fill that void, then great!  I'm not convinced it can be as good as some others in more complex situations. The better ones include things like high quality drum programs, tons of usable loops both midi and audio, extensive routing options and clear concise labeling.Phase alignment programs, vocal alignment programs, timing error stretchers both for audio and midi, pre made efx chains dedicated to any situation, tape emulation, console emulation,high quality included plug-ins, importing of all audio file types, extensive control automation, including auto recognize of keyboard controllers and drum machines, the ability to mix in surround stereo, dedicated mastering features....and the list goes on. What usually ends up happening- The user buys a lesser program and spends more money for add ons later. Buying a higher ended program assures that those things are included. I can tell the difference between a good synth  and a cheaper knock off and this translates into sub par mixes....just sayin'

I'm  glad that Reaper works for Prometheus and I apologize for changing the focus of the thread. I never have had anything against you Steve. I can see how you took it like that even though you weren't the main poster.

 

Thanks John. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks! It took ages to put in place. We have a whole load of improvements coming online, starting with a new member hub.

I don't doubt that you wanted to kick off a discussion (and it has!) but in terms of options in approach, if you want to understand, the key is in asking the questions you have. From personal experience, as soon as you tell people what they think it stands a chance to cause offence and to entrench viewpoints. It colours replies. that is frequently why, when I start a discussion thread, I deliberately do not state my opinion to get it going. Instead i simply explain that I will not offer my thoughts until I get the opinions of some members. That allows me to more genuinely and openly follow up with additional questions without members feeling defensive. They tend to speak more openly with me, even if they have disagreed with other members within the thread.

Ultimately, I am very interested in what they think and why. Sometimes that sways my opinions, when there are facts that I am unaware of. Generally speaking, when it comes to like... opinion is just that. There is now right answer. Members say what is right for them. I tend to know what is right for me (but as said, new facts can change that). Do I know what is right for them? No. I can suspect it, if I spend time drilling into what their needs are and how they intend using whatever it is, be it hardware, software, process, notation, concept, technique etc.then I can make an educated guess and offer some informed suggestions.

Reaper. Looking at it as a software developer, I have always suspected that they don't invest much in the development of the user interface. By that i mean, there are specialists in user interface design. As menu systems became more and more complex as they offered ever evolving and complex functionality, User Interface design became more and more important. Some software developers (Microsoft being a good example) invested a lot in adaptive user interface designs. This means that the menu options change and adapt according to how YOU use it. There have been great strides forward in how this is implemented. However, with user interfaces that offer thousands of options and possibilities, there tends to have been very little invested in the user experience. Development instead focuses almost entirely on functionality.

For me, Reaper offers immense control over functionality. What it appears to care less about (not nothing, that wouldn't be fair) is user interaction with the system and how that can be improved. Instead usage improvements evolve from user feedback, a bit like licking your finger and sticking it up to help you detect the direction the wind is blowing from, versus using a series of tests and functional equipment to provide a full profile of the wind. Reaper, for me, does the former.

This is fairly common for smaller software companies. Devoting a salary to a user interface specialist feels like a high price, instead, an existing developer or two takes it on as part of their job role. They are not specialists. This makes all the difference. However, under the hood, I would fully anticipate their technical product to be every bit as good as the big players. More than that, for techies and detail people, they are more responsive to users and  include stuff because technically they would think it interesting and potentially useful. The big players however are less responsive. Every feature has to have a proven demand. The feature set is defined according to popular need. It's quite a different approach.

The long and the short is, for those tech heads, those detail people, Reaper is ideal. It is developed for tech heads, by tech heads. Big player products are far more lead by sales volume. Tech heads are a secondary user for them. Their main user is the type of user that sells the most copies. This tends to have features developed by more curtailed developers (ie tech heads who are controlled by business management), and typically most users have some tech experience, but are interested in results more than anything else.

Let me give an example of these different users from another field. Synth patches. Most synth patch users use off-the-shelf patches, either out the box, or with minor tweaks. The next most common are users who take off-the-shelf patches but like to perform major surgery on the sounds they use. Lastly, there are users who use the off-the-shelf patches more to get an idea of the capability of the synth engine, and then they create their own sounds from the ground up.

This has a very real impact on the product. the first group create song after song that uses sounds that loads of other people use. They churn out quick songs that only the first songs out the stable sound unique. Reason users were a perfect example of this. You could spot a Reason song a mile away. The third group tend to create highly unique sounding songs, but the time to create each song is much much longer because of the time it takes to create all those sounds. Meanwhile the second group is striking a balance between sounding original and getting there first.

All of such decisions can have a true impact on the success or marketability of the artist. Certainly it can change the approach.

Each of those users may look at the features available across loads of synths. Group 1 tends to like easy to use synths with massive pre-made patch libraries. Group 3 tends to like synths with loads of controls, loads of options, loads of flexibility. Group 2 like a balance of a large patch library and a fair degree of control.

You see? There is no right answer. there is only matching the type of user to the type of product.

:)

Edited by john
Link to comment
Share on other sites

PS, sorry for the thread hijack guys. Starise and I could perhaps talk about this elsewhere?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I totally agree John and thanks for your comments. It is usually pointless to tell someone else what you think could help them. I seriously doubt that even 10% will really care. Salesmen are constantly attempting to do just that. I was trying to save someone a headache down the road. I guess I shouldn't really care. It's not my money or my time and maybe my reasoning doesn't totally fit their approach. I can't say really why I do care. 

I think one of the concerns I have is a deeper issue that tends to be society wide. The idea that there are no rules, no barometers of measurement, no real idea of a standard or the standard itself can move. The idea that everything is equal. On the surface it makes everyone happy because anything goes. Aside from what the user is primarily doing with it, music software should be a matter of black and white if discussing concrete functions and capabilities in my opinion...but it seems that the same logic prevails in some circles. There isn't even a good, better or best.

 I understand that there will be people who only intend to play with loops, so they wouldn't be as interested in a linear recorder...different strokes for different folks. All DAWs do basically the same thing and that's all true, but they don't all work the same way, some have far more capability than others. Some are considered entry level and some are professional. Some have a great user interface and some don't. I know you are well aware of all of this, I am only stating it to make a point. I won't argue with anyone who is convinced that what they have works the best for them.  If I see someone using a program that does something time consuming manually and another program has the capability to do the same thing automatically , I will be convinced that they could have done it in a better way. I won't make it a personal agenda to convince them otherwise. I do look at ways I can improve my workflow and recordings though. 

The DAW I use has updates every month. The forum there has  a features and ideas area. There are often improvements in workflow in a single month. One of the most recent improvements was a button on the track that allows anything to be routed to anything else, even itself. Busses can be routed back into new tracks and recorded, duplicates can be made and altered from the originals. I don't have the space to tell you everything this one change is capable of but as an engineer I'm sure you have a good idea. Add 12 months of these little changes up and you have a constantly evolving program. I have been a contributor to some of the ideas and one has been followed up on. 

I think we will start to see more of a distancing in the future, I already see some of it happening. A distancing between the basic consumer hobbyist DAW software and the more pro level programs. It won't be much longer and the differences will be so apparent that they can't be ignored. I think Reaper sits somewhere in the middle. The future of Reaper depends on its ability to adapt to the competition. If you practically get it free, then it isn't likely to disappear completely. There always has been a margin but I think the margin is about to widen. Then it all depends on user interest in capability.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have used Cubase (although not recently), ProTools (I own PT10 and still use it from time to time), Fruity Loops (I own this one), Reason (I own this one, too), Cakewalk (long time ago), and Reaper (which I have used since May). I originally got Reaper as a demo to check it out, and as an alternative to the upgrade-aholic and CPU hog (at least on a Windows machine) ProTools.

My other programs rarely get used anymore because Reaper is amazing and THE most computer efficient DAW I have ever used. It uses a fraction of the computer resources that ProTools does (I have done head to head tests with songs), it loads super fast, and it rarely crashes (unlike ProTools). There is nothing I ever did in ProTools that I can't do in Reaper, and Reaper is a lot less finicky about my old plugins than ProTools which is important to me because I can't afford re-purchasing plugins. It runs the latest VST plugins (ones I have bought within the last 6 months) perfectly as well. I used the demo for a month, and went ahead and bought it. I have never looked back, and I love it (yes, I am a 'fanboy' lol). The configurability ROCKS, and the price is incredible for such a powerful DAW

In a nutshell, it is perfect for a guy like me with a project studio who likes the flexibility and price (I can spend those dollars somewhere else now!) of Reaper. Do not confuse Reaper with some scaled-down 'affordable' DAW you settle for instead of ProTools or Cubase. It is every bit as top notch as those DAWs. It is a little intimidating at first but it doesn't take long to get a handle on it and then you just keep learning more (just like with any DAW) as you use it. I have never been more productive churning out music.

Just my 0.02

Peace,

TC

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I'm not a Pro user by any means, but for simple things I like Mixcraft and when I dabble into more serious stuff (for me) I have Studio One. But I've enjoyed reading through about Reaper. I might give it a test drive. Thanks Songstuffers!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

My main reason for choosing Mixcraft was a balance of a couple of things. First, my nephew who now works in a sound studio told me that Pro Tools was the only thing to get but I am very new at recording/mixing music and with 7 kids couldn't justify the cost to the wife (the REAL reason...haha). I had a lite version of Ableton Live Lite that came with my Focusrite interface but found that I spent more time trying to figure out the complexity (like I said, I'm new) of the program then recording and mixing.  Got frustrated and took the fun out of it. I agree that if you are very serious about doing this for a living you should invest and get the best you can afford. However, I can dream about doing this for a living but am honest enough to realize that ain't going to happen anytime soon.  As I have been able to spend more time recording and learning mixing by actually doing it verses getting frustrated at the complexity of the DAW I am learning much more faster! I can see in the future that as I grow in music so will the need for better and more powerful tools.

Just a rookie's perspective.

Tony

Edited by TPistilli
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mixcraft is a great tool to grow with.  I haven't upgraded to the latest version.  When I do I'm getting everything.  Generally I'm against having to use only the plugins that come with a given daw.  That being said when you buy the package you get tonnes and tonnes of useful sounds and effects to work with.  It also plays well with all of my plugins.  The same can't be said of my experiences with Ableton.  The more external plugins one uses in Ableton live the greater the latency issues.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, that's why I got the full package. For the money it was amazing how many instruments and plugins I got. Only cost me around $165 american

./

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...
On 10/31/2015 at 4:21 PM, starise said:

The first was to come here to a thread where the guy is stoked about Reaper and mention that I think there's something better.  I did sincerely question why someone would make that choice over the others, especially when the person " Has used many different daws"


I think that might be me you're referring to.  I served my time on Cubase and Pro Tools.  I've also used Logic, Cakewalk Sonar, FL Studio, Cool Edit Pro and Reason among others.  I don't use Reaper because I'm a miser.  I can say with honesty but hopefully without arrogance that I could go straight out and buy a Mercedes Benz if I sold off the audio equipment I have in this house.
 

I would defy anyone on Earth to tell the difference between what I've produced in Reaper and what I've produced in Cubase or Pro Tools.  Much as I loved my old Cubase setup, I don't want to download the latest Nuendo from Pirate Bay and I don't want to pay hundreds of dollars for something that will do the same job as what I can get for $60.  Either of those aforementioned approaches seem to me inconsistent with reason.

 

Reaper is a geek's paradise of configuration possibilities.  I love it.  Even if I were a multimillionaire I would keep using it.  It has immense functionality for those who can be bothered learning to use it, and I can be bothered.

Edited by Prometheus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Prometheus,

 

I can't get around the fact that I'm a bit biased. My opinions are not totally seen through clear lenses. It's good to read others opinions on it. I think Steve is correct. This could be an endless discussion. Kind of similar to Mac..vs PC or Fender .vs Les Paul

On 7/2/2016 at 8:15 PM, Prometheus said:

I would defy anyone on Earth to tell the difference between what I've produced in Reaper and what I've produced in Cubase or Pro Tools.  Much as I loved my old Cubase setup, I don't want to download the latest Nuendo from Pirate Bay and I don't want to pay hundreds of dollars for something that will do the same job as what I can get for $60.  Either of those aforementioned approaches seem to me inconsistent with reason.

 

I see your point. My focus was more on HOW it was achieved and not as much what comes out the other end. The engineer is probably more crucial than the actual software. There is some difference in audio engines between software types and there have been endless discussions on that.

 

 Coming at this with my colored lenses and in my opinion user interface is very important, but this could also become a very opinionated discussion because what I think is a great user interface might not sit well with you. My software allows a high level of adaptation and customization and I can save anything with mix recall. To me this is a big plus since I can adapt it to my particular needs. Reaper has something similar but not as developed. Does that matter to most users? Probably not.

 

I think Reaper is one of the best values out there, especially for anyone who is just starting out. No point in wasting money if it doesn't need to be spent.But as I said before, the more in depth Reaper user might eventually come up against a wall of limitation and this is the only reason I encouraged getting a deeper program right off the bat. This is only my opinion. A user who has basic needs probably won't ever need anything else.

 

In my case Sonar Platinum is offering free lifetime updates for only 99.00 for vested users. The cost is more for a new user, so I'm not so sure I would want to spend a much higher amount if I were new and looking at new software. I never need to spend another penny on software updates for life. This deal is only good through August. The implications of this might mean that at some point in the near future I will have spent less on Sonar than a similar user of Reaper. Even if a new user has to shell out more money, it's a one time expense.

 

On 7/2/2016 at 8:15 PM, Prometheus said:

Reaper is a geek's paradise of configuration possibilities.  I love it.  Even if I were a multimillionaire I would keep using it.  It has immense functionality for those who can be bothered learning to use it, and I can be bothered.

 

 I would agree that Reaper attracts the geeks :). If you like it why change? No reason to really.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, starise said:

Hi Prometheus,

 

I can't get around the fact that I'm a bit biased. My opinions are not totally seen through clear lenses. It's good to read others opinions on it. I think Steve is correct. This could be an endless discussion. Kind of similar to Mac..vs PC or Fender .vs Les Paul

 

I concur.  There were certainly things I could do with a couple of mouse clicks in Cubase that require a philadelphia lawyer to navigate in Reaper, so I take your point on that.  I would certainly take on board that a lot of music producers would rather focus on the music than the intricacies of digital software designed by geeks for geeks, after all, there's nothing digital about us.

Anyway, you are right.  In matters of personal taste there's no argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before I say anything, I will admit a bias towards Reaper (I have used ProTools and Cubase, and others as well).

 

To clarify some points I made earlier and in response to some comments I just read:

 

1. Reaper is every bit as DEEP as any DAW on the market.

2. If you want to do something with a keystroke, it's very easy to define one in Reaper and you don't have to be a geek. For instance, I set up pitch change to + and - keys (took me less than 5 minutes to figure this out and implement it). 

3. It's 60 bucks IF you pay for the full version (please do pay if you decide to use it, and no I have nothing to do with the guys at Cockos).

4. The plugins that come with Reaper do a good job and some are outstanding.

5. NO, it doesn't come with any instrument libraries but we end buying the ones we want anyway (especially with the money saved on the DAW).

6. It is EFFICIENT (notice the capitalization). My latest song has 35 tracks + subgroups + processing + VST instruments +  mastering plugin and it used ~33.5% max. CPU on a Windows 8.1 / 3GHz i5 processor / 8 GB RAM. I dare anyone to duplicate this performance in ProTools!

 

The idea that REAPER is for geeks is amusing. I have struggled to figure out certain things on EVERY single DAW I have played with. They all have their learning curve.

 

At the end of the day, use whichever DAW floats your boat. As others have stated, the DAW isn't going to change your sound to any significant degree. Any good DAW will work for you. This thread started out by being about Reaper so I will heap my praises upon it once more to get folks to consider it :)

 

Peace,

TC

Edited by TCgypsy
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
On 1/7/2016 at 2:21 AM, TapperMike said:

Mixcraft is a great tool to grow with.  I haven't upgraded to the latest version.  When I do I'm getting everything.  Generally I'm against having to use only the plugins that come with a given daw.  That being said when you buy the package you get tonnes and tonnes of useful sounds and effects to work with.  It also plays well with all of my plugins.  The same can't be said of my experiences with Ableton.  The more external plugins one uses in Ableton live the greater the latency issues.

 

 

Reaper is fully compatible with VST plugins.  As far as RTAS plugins go, I'm fully into letting closed architectures die.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Your Ad Could Be Here



  • Current Donation Goals

    • Raised $1,040.00
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By continuing to use our site you indicate acceptance of our Terms Of Service: Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy: Privacy Policy, our Community Guidelines: Guidelines and our use of Cookies We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.