I think I see what you mean, but that is what I currently do. I go online for updates and dont allow the main DAW machine online otherwise, and if I can download it as a separate installer, thats always my first choice.
I have everything I can disabled in the background disabled, so I can wring every last bit of resources towards music.
As another example, MS fairly recently updated Windows to no longer support firewire devices, rendering my Focusrite Saffire audio interface useless. Its not directly relevant but as a way of showing how things can be completely borked with one official update, not even a bug.
I go through months at a time without home internet. If I were to get home from a friends, having downloaded the latest update, only to have bfd broken and no recourse…
Anyway, individual situations like mine aside, forced checking back with any regularity, and having it connected to being able to use the software doesnt sound very user friendly or prone to trouble free sessions.
EDIT: Im repeating myself a lot now I shall try and stop. But also, what your saying is, that offline user then has no way to update to the latest version unless they decide to have their machine connected at whatever times the publisher decides?
That’s awful, there should be some legal recourse against microsoft for stuff like that but I’m sure they have loop holes within their terms and conditions.
I have taken to checking what’s on offer with every ms update but it’s not fail safe and the last major update almost killed my laptop but I have a friend who fixed it through various command prompts.
I’m pretty sure BFD would notify their users of any intended changes as they always have done in the past. Each update would come with a, new features and bug fix list.
Hopefully they, and not just Drew, are reading these posts.
Absolutely no offence to Drew or any of the rest of the team, but thats demonstrably not true for this version I know there are mitigating migration circumstances in this instance but again, thats another reason why an app calling home to check whether its allowed to function, under any time frame, is dooming some to not being able to use it.
Re: Firewire… Yeah, its partly a shrug of ‘thats just the way it goes’ but at the same time, firewire not taking off was an industry thing, a monolith of a corporation, and I wasnt on their forums giving feedback The thing is, this is why I’m currently moving to Linux, and there are very few options other than MS.
I’d rather not be in this position with BFD too, so I dont have much option other than to argue against any proposed online checks being tied to functionality.
Dont even get me started on the concept of software as an always online subscription service…
But this is, (according to Drew) a bug and will be rectified in the next build so I’m pretty sure that had it been their intention to force users to be permanently on line, this would have been very made clear beforehand.
Surely if it’s once every 3 or 4 months it’s not that hard to go on line for a few minutes?
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not in favour of it at all and I’d like to know for what purpose other than as an anti piracy measure it would be required.
Thats true, I think I forgot what I was talking about?
Yes, it can be? On who’s time frame? Would you be happy with this if your OS locked up because you hadnt been online for 6 months? Because why? It doesnt trust you?
Its a drum app, not a petulant child demanding to use the internet.
There are so many working scenarios where this could be a showstopper.
EDIT: Im really not sure how adding more speculation of time frames the software is maybe going to call home is helping anything. Pointing out the bug makes sense tho.
The problem with periodic checks - as already mentioned, and as I have posted on KVR - is that you are guaranteeing that at some point, the software will cease to function through no fault of your own. Companies die, suits make decisions to discontinue software etc. etc.
It’s just a really bad idea to hand over the keys to your critical software to a third party. I’m fine with a ping on activation or when updating. I’m not fine with periodic pings that leave me at the mercy of multiple third parties (my ISP, inMusic’s servers, the links between the two, inMusic itself yadda yadda).
The onus should be on me to ensure that my system is running and the software is functioning, and if there are any issues, I want to be able to solve them myself, not be at the mercy of third parties.
I’ve asked this a few times and got no explanation but, if you’re BFD3 and expansions are all licensed and running fine and then you disconnect your WiFi, how then are they able to disable it?
They will need to access it so the only way I see how that could happen is if it were on a timer.
Yes they could disable BFD3 when you next try to update it but then you’d run the licence manager anyway so no issue there that I can see.
As Long as users were notified before hand and given a window in which to log in, like a week or 2 weeks at the end of a given month then that shouldn’t be too hard.
Like I said, I’m not in favour of it but it’s a whole lot better than iLok. I have no iLok products on my system and am keen to keep it that way.
Well it’s happening now where if you’re not online it doesn’t work, so same principle. Not difficult to program. I’d rather they spent that time programming a better product personally.
I’m not a huge fan of iLok, but I have enough iLok VST plug-ins to know it’s not a huge problem - none require a dongle, they’re all computer-authorised. One authorisation is less intrusive than once a week/month/year whatever the time schedule would be, I don’t care. I’ve paid for this software so stop checking up on me like some crim!
I’m not sure what this checking up on users is supposed to prove anyway. That people who have actually paid for the product aren’t doing what exactly?
That only happened as a result of us updating and installing the new licence manager and BFD3.4 , it’s not the same at all.
If I decide to take an internet hiatus for the next year or so (once the bug is fixed in the next build) I may miss all the lovely updates but they won’t be able to disable BFD3 unless as I said it’s on a timer.
Totally agree there, I’m quite baffled, if you’re using a pirated copy you probably bypass the licence manager anyway.
Which if there is an expectation of users being online, there will be, otherwise your point is ‘why does it matter if it phones home and nothing happens?’. If I update, and it expects me to be online in four weeks time, of course its got some sort of timer involved. Whats the point of the expectation otherwise.
Arguing with everyone and shoving your own speculation in there that you dont personally have a problem with isnt helping matters. Its not allaying fears, its just ‘i dont mind, neither should you’.
Arguing with everyone and shoving your own speculation in there that you dont personally have a problem with isnt helping matters. Its not allaying fears, its just ‘i dont mind, neither should you’.
[/quote]
**
Precisely. The only thing I am interesting is making the software work as it should so the developers can spend time improving it. At the moment I am stuck in 3.3. I would like to feel that I own a share in this software and that I can look forward to exciting developments. I have been looking at SD3 and have become less keen on it the more I have found out and heard. It occurs to me that I like the sound and flexibility of BFD3. I mix in Cubase and use a combination of 3rd party software to get the sounds I like. I want to continue to do this as I have done in the past working offline…
Steve,
If, following the update, they have decided to make periodic checks mandatory then code will be included to require a check in to keep the software working. No check in during a set timeframe and the software disables itself. iLok uses this for their Zero Downtime insurance (which is not mandatory)
The only problem I have, being disabled, is that I can go for up to three to four months at a time, through being ill, not being able to access my computer, and therefor the internet.
I’m not a big lover of iLok, but I use it (dongle, and computer licence) for all my Izotope stuff, so not a big problem if it went that way.
I’ve not updated yet, since migrating, I’m running ok for the time being, hopefully giving me a good window to get my new pc built and up and running.
I just hope all issues are solved quickly by those in charge and tested by the testers.
It seems the whole thing is in a bit of a mess at present and doesn’t hold good for the future (lets hope I’m wrong on that).
Thank you, at last some one has given me an explanation.
In a sense then, I think your explanation is a kind of timer which is as I’d thought.
And as I keep repeating, I think it’s a terrible idea, despite the fact that my DAW is always on line so I won’t be adversely affected.
But I would like to hear their reasoning behind it.
As some one else rightly pointed out, once you have you have licensed your copy of BFD3 and all your expansion kits that should be that. You should never be required to provide proof of the fact again.
Steve I do wish that you would not keep referring to the fact you are always online, so you won’t be adversely affected. Fine. However, it’s not helping to calm the debate. I get that this might not be an intentional issue, but it does seem less than competent for the roll out of BFD3.4 to be so beset with serious operational issues. Issues that I might add make the software un-useable for many of us.
I spend a lot of time recording and using BFD3. If I wanted to spend most of my time troubleshooting this software I would not have reverted to 3.3. I prefer to use my time making music and not doing unpaid beta work for inMusic. Given the rash of issues with the new version I am not tempted to try again. Especially considering the time it took me to get 3.4 to see all my expansions.
I know that you are a big supporter of BFD and have appreciated you during the days of Fxpansion for your help and advice.
There is a build in beta now that addresses expansion packs not being accessible when offline. Think we’ve got it now! Once it passes the beta team, it’ll go public.
I shall try and stop. But also, what your saying is, that offline user then has no way to update to the latest version unless they decide to have their machine connected at whatever times the publisher decides?
I know there are mitigating migration circumstances in this instance but again, thats another reason why an app calling home to check whether its allowed to function, under any time frame, is dooming some to not being able to use it.
