>> "Any chances of a VST implementation?"
I'm not going to say NO, but honestly, there are many more things that are on my list ahead of looking at it.
"Why?" you say?
Here's why:
I run the AMP host on a separate PC, as I recommend for everyone. This gives you the best stability, as it seems that graphic updates are the major source of CPU hiccups. VSTs are designed to be controlled _only_ on the host they are running. How would you then control the VST parameters "live", if you are only at your GUI PC?
I don't think sac's way of doing it is very good, and I don't want that reputation for AMP - that it's a "gimmicky interface". The big difference between the "big boy" mixers and sac is that their interface is refined, and everything works. There's no "adjust the parameters, right click this, shift click that, Send parameters, etc etc..." stuff. AMP's current plugins, meager as they might be, all work from any GUI, and respond in real time, just as you would expect.
This sort of ties into another interesting post I say on "another" forum... I do *not* want AMP to be a program that requires all sorts of fiddling just to get it working. You should be able to boot, and mix. Sure, there are a LOT of customizations you can do, and in that regard, it's no different from any serious digital mixer. There's a lot more that you CAN do, but not that you NEED to do.
So back to the subject at hand: I don't want to implement something that is a poor design from the start. If there is a way we can get that graphic interface (or -some- sort of interface) to the GUI that will adjust VST parameters live in real-time, then I'm for it. But if it is a hack, I don't want to cheapen the product.
What is it that you want to accomplish with the plugins? Remember that while AMP is in "Beta test", it is *not* in "Feature Freeze". There's lots more stuff on my radar before version 1.0, and what you want may be on the list.
Bob