Old 4th September 2006, 17:41   #1
bytemastr
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 8
Foobar2000 0.9.x visualization plug-in support

I know this is sacrilege on a Winamp forum, but this seems to be where Milkdrop is based, so..

Has anyone considered porting this to fb2k? projectM isn't realy stable and the guy who wrote foo_vis_bacon hasn't ported that to 0.9 yet.

Thanks for the consideration/info.
bytemastr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th September 2006, 19:15   #2
DrO
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 27,873
most likely not since apart from redi jedi no one else winamp related has done anything with milkdrop and there doesn't seem to have been too much interest otherwise that i've seen. unless someone interested in fb2k and visualisations wants to then i doubt you're going to be looking at a native milkdrop build for 0.9x on an indefinite basis.

-daz
DrO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th September 2006, 21:06   #3
redi jedi
Will code for food
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: orlando
Posts: 521
ya i can tell ya for sure that i'm not gonna do it...

Blah!
redi jedi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th September 2006, 14:52   #4
Rovastar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: London, England
Posts: 3,632
Send a message via AIM to Rovastar
Also I am, at this stage, not interested in doing any visualizations for Foobar. And I wouldn'y recommend any visualization author to invest time into Moobar either.

a) Peter P who initially wrote Foobar has never had any interest in visualizations. In fact found them a waste of time.

b) Foobar recently completely rewrote the vis plugin engine for v0.9x breaking the few visualizations already made for this.
Including the vis_bacon ran all/most of the winamp plugins.

Importantly without discussion the new engine with visualizations authors. The main visualization with a custom install for foobar is G-Force as Andy O'Meara and now it doesn't work as a result of this. So wisely he has pulled support as FooBar only has 0.04% of his downloads.

Changing the vis plugin/dislay engine has been the nail in the coffin for visualizations on foobar.

"Rules are for the guidance of wisemen and the obedience of fools"

Visuals - Morphyre www.Morphyre.com
Rovastar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th September 2006, 16:18   #5
51Strong
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 80
Fubar is the sucks
Never understood what anyones see's in it.
VLC is even a better mp3 player then that POS.

Cheer's
51Strong is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th September 2006, 03:51   #6
Sirus20x6
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 10
Send a message via AIM to Sirus20x6
memory

Quote:
Originally posted by 51Strong
Fubar is the sucks
Never understood what anyones see's in it.
VLC is even a better mp3 player then that POS.

Cheer's
Minimize foobar and see how ridiculously little memory it uses.
Sirus20x6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th December 2006, 01:56   #7
OdessaCubbage
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
foobar2000 has very noticable higher sound quality then winamp and uses much less resources. I am more than impressed and switched. I am going to use winamp when I have guests over though I guess until milkdrop support is fixed for foobar2000 0.9.4.
  Reply With Quote
Old 5th January 2007, 11:31   #8
Koopa
16-Bit Moderator
 
Koopa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 4,341
Quote:
Originally posted by OdessaCubbage
foobar2000 has very noticable higher sound quality then winamp and uses much less resources.
The wonderful effect of placebo. Even PP himself said, that foobar and Winamp have the same sound quality...
Koopa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th April 2007, 10:38   #9
angma
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2
fb2k

Quote:
Originally posted by Koopatrooper
The wonderful effect of placebo. Even PP himself said, that foobar and Winamp have the same sound quality...
Excuse me... he SAID... THERE IS a slight difference in audio quality--a few bits. Foobar DOES have higher quality audio output. HOWEVER... he also said that it should not be noticeable by the human ear. HENCE... placebo effect. Other than the fact that foobar is not bloatware, it is not a MULTIMEDIA player (like winamp or videolan). It is an AUDIO player that has natively supported an outrageously large amount of file formats for a VERY long time (unlike winamp). There is NO comparison between the two in terms of playback. Foobar is audio only with extremely low resource usage. It is very difficult (without a dual-core processor) to use Winamp and encode video. Foobar tackles the problem easily--not bloated. Winamp is definitely... sexier... but as far as audio players are concerned, definitely not better... perhaps not worse.
angma is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th April 2007, 10:43   #10
angma
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2
Re: fb2k

Quote:
Originally posted by angma
Excuse me... he SAID... THERE IS a slight difference in audio quality--a few bits. Foobar DOES have higher quality audio output. HOWEVER... he also said that it should not be noticeable by the human ear. HENCE... placebo effect. Other than the fact that foobar is not bloatware, it is not a MULTIMEDIA player (like winamp or videolan). It is an AUDIO player that has natively supported an outrageously large amount of file formats for a VERY long time (unlike winamp). There is NO comparison between the two in terms of playback. Foobar is audio only with extremely low resource usage. It is very difficult (without a dual-core processor) to use Winamp and encode video. Foobar tackles the problem easily--not bloated. Winamp is definitely... sexier... but as far as audio players are concerned, definitely not better... perhaps not worse.
uhh....and foobar does need more vis... at least then it might be closer to becoming as sexy as winamp. Winamp (in terms of audio) is only superior in terms of "eye-candy" --nothing more. Foobar is unbeatable in terms of resource useage, playback and file format compatibility, but definitely needs a lot of work before it can hit the
fashion runway. I love it and it is my main audio player, but there is a definite reason I always keep it minimized to tray.
angma is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th April 2007, 12:25   #11
DrO
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 27,873
the issue as i see it is that of those people who do code for foobar, there's few who are bothered about visualisations and thus is where you're always going to be behind on this area. if people don't code the stuff then there obviously won't be the vis plugins (and the fact irrespective of growth of foobar, it is still a niche player). alas you're preaching to the wrong people since those skilled in vis plugins have near enough disappeared from winamp (and most other players from what i've seen)

as for your comment about supported formats - just because foobar ships loads of format support out of the box doesn't make it better than winamp since it can play them as well (i'd rather download plugins for more obscure formats separately especially since they're often done by 3rd party devs rather than have everything under the sun in the main winamp distro).

it all really comes down to what people prefer - personally i can't stand foobar now (only really got on with it in the 0.3x/0.4x days and then it became unsuitable for my needs). if you're happier with foobar then that's the main thing for you _but_ finding coders for anything on any player will be an issue especially since so many people nowadays don't want to code just for free (is possible of the decrease of winamp plugins made as well i think over the last few years but that's just the internet mentality taking over too much)

-daz
DrO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd May 2007, 10:52   #12
Rovastar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: London, England
Posts: 3,632
Send a message via AIM to Rovastar
Welcome angma we don't often get trolls on this forum. Visualizations are just "eye-candy" as you say. Foobars fanboys will just slag them off for being bloat.

DrO

" alas you're preaching to the wrong people since those skilled in vis plugins have near enough disappeared from winamp (and most other players from what i've seen)"

Yeah there is a lack of interest in the visualization aspect of the media players for many years. AFAIK Winamp is the only one that have invested time or money (and they did both) into creating a useable platform and funding visualization dev. (not perfect but I'll get onto that later)

I mean look at WMP default/bundled visualizations they still look like they are from the 90's and iTunes haven't changed there's in the last 5+ (maybe 7...) years.

Off the rest I don't think any have anything of note by default.

" if you're happier with foobar then that's the main thing for you _but_ finding coders for anything on any player will be an issue especially since so many people nowadays don't want to code just for free (is possible of the decrease of winamp plugins made as well i think over the last few years but that's just the internet mentality taking over too much)"

Part of the problem is that time it takes now to create something you would class as good. A good engine development can months full time work and sadly who has the time for that for free.

Some do and I have done my fair share for freebees in the past but years ago you got thank yous and token shareware contributions and Geiss (postcardware) and going back further Zaph [Cthugha] (postCDware back 12 years ago when you had to buy a CD)

In the past 5 years it has been bitching about things not working and constant request for stuff to be made open source. So I blame the culture of the Internet users moreso than the devs being lazy.

I know visualization authors that have dropped away for this very reason.

Also sometimes Winamp doesn't help itself either. How many years now has the sort function on the plugin pages been broken? Things like that IMHO don't help devs want to contribute more.

"Rules are for the guidance of wisemen and the obedience of fools"

Visuals - Morphyre www.Morphyre.com
Rovastar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd May 2007, 17:10   #13
Gobd
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 20
Send a message via AIM to Gobd
I don't understand the Foobar argument either. We already decided the audio quality is not noticeably better, especially from the shitty speakers and headphones most people use. Memory usage arguments mean nothing, the latest version of Winamp uses only 1.5MB of memory if you don't enable modern skin support, library, agent, video, or anything else that isn't important to playing audio aka you turn Winamp into Foobar. Winamp looks better than Foobar with much less work, if you argue against that you're blind. People that like Winamp like total control which is fine, but most people are okay without that.
Gobd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd May 2007, 20:44   #14
Phat
Major Dude
 
Phat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 940
You don't HAVE to use the most recent version either...

http://www.oldversion.com/program.php?n=winamp
Phat is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Go Back   Winamp & Shoutcast Forums > Visualizations > MilkDrop > MilkDrop Feature Requests

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump