-
A Plug-In maker chimes in on FCPX
-
Speaking as a developer, we asked for months for any info about support for FCX. We were told by Apple engineers, “We can’t say”.
And yet – as others have pointed out, FxFactory obviously knew.
The info’s out there now, but personally, I will require some time to evaluate the best way to support both FCP7 and FCX clients.
Patrick Sheffield
Sheffield Softworks -
I think Blackmagic may have something to say about FCPX at tonight’s Supermeet in London. I understand they are working with closely with Apple on this. More than that, I cannot say. But – it’s inconceivable that support will not be forthcoming.
Ben
Edit Out Ltd
—————————-
FCP Editor/Trainer/System Consultant
EVS/VT Supervisor for live broadcast
RED camera transfer/post
Independent Director/Producerhttps://www.blackmagic-design.com/community/communitydetails/?UserStoryId=8757
-
To add to Patrick’s comments. I have beat my head against the wall trying to get early access for over two years. CoreMelt Complete V2 was a staff pick on the old FCP Downloads section and we have over 200 plugins available for FCP and Motion.
Basically in discussions with the relevant managers at Apple we have been told “sorry we only have so many beta slots, and they are filled”. Hey, so how about create some more slots? Does Apple have to create diamond gem encrusted dongles for every beta partner and they can only afford so many? Otherwise I find it hard to understand this mentality.
In contrast, other host partners, Autodesk, Adobe and the Foundry freely give us access to beta’s even when we have not yet shipped any products for that platform. The contrast is really night and day, and I know from private conversations there is a bunch of developer partners seriously considering if it makes any financial sense to keep working as part of the FCP ecosystem.
–
CoreMelt V2 plugins -
Well, if the plug-ins are based on FX plug, once Apple provides FXplug ability into fcp-x, the old and busted plug-ins will be useable again, no? I don’t know whatn I’m talking about but it seems to me the plugs that were written with a standard like FXplug in mind should be translateable to some new standard, without needing a complete re-write for each plug? Or is that just wishful thinking?
-
Yes, all plugins are now based around FxPlug2 – an expansion of the first FxPlug SDK. They must be re-compiled or re-built, and “Rigs” must be constructed for them in Motion 5, and these must be married to an installer. There are still outstanding questions amongst developers, but none of this should have been top secret. If Apple had provided a very small amount of information, vendors could have been prepared at FCX release.
FxScript plugins, of course, have been dropped completely. Apple could have supplied an FxScript interpreter FxPlug plugin, but why worry about that? Why worry about anything legacy? Like maybe FCS7 projects?
Patrick Sheffield
Sheffield Softworks -
I can’t understand why Apple would give some of developers access over others. It’s self defeating.
You’d think Apple would understand the widest possible support from all FCP developers would improve FCPX acceptance in the market place. I can’t see how secrecy overrides that. Developers understand NDAs.
Even Apple’s obsession with secrecy doesn’t justify how they’ve handled the developers. What “leak” could be more deleterious than the lack of support?
-
Exactly, fxplug2 is basically the same api with 64 bit extensions, no surprise there. Having to wrap them in a motion template to work in FCP is a bit weird but whatever.
At this stage we are thinking we may be able to have at least some CoreMelt plugins available within 2 weeks but we won’t commit to that yet.
–
CoreMelt V2 plugins -
It’s too bad the Motion templates can’t be locked or protected in some way. I could think of some awesome development opportunities, but no way to protect them from piracy.
Patrick Sheffield
Sheffield Softworks
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up