2. AVS
  3. Why AVS?

Archive: Why AVS?


someguy_99

24th February 2006 19:19 UTC

Why AVS?
Why do so many people use AVS? I've used milkdrop for the longest time, but I just recently noticed that AVS is a whole lot more popular. Is there a particular reason for this? In my experience, milkdrop looks a little less rough and runs at higher framerates, which is what drew me to it.

JFASI

24th February 2006 19:34 UTC

I'd say that that's because AVS offers

1. More modules, segements, APEs, call them what you will

2. A simpler display. You see your presets broken down into distinct segments.

3. It is far more linear in the conceptualization of the presets. There is less to think about for the future.

4. It's the default vis plugin in Winamp, so when people crack open the program, they see it first.

5. The style of the presets is actually different from the style of Milkdrop. Or at least the current trend is different.

MaTTFURY

25th February 2006 05:55 UTC

AVS Editor is easier to use :/

Yathosho

25th February 2006 23:42 UTC

i prefer the osd controls of milkdrop, though they're not as nice as in vsx ultra. however, it's the higher variety of looks that make me prefer avs. milkdrop always looks like milkdrop, for good and for bad.

jheriko

26th February 2006 16:51 UTC

milkdrop can render faster yes. but i think the popularity thing is about what it can render.

milkdrop doesnt offer enough flexibility, afaik it lets you manipulate pre existing algorithms rather than provide your own. this is why avs is more popular imo.

like yat pointed out, milkdrop does always look like milkdrop.

hornet777

1st March 2006 22:18 UTC

coz its fun

MaTTFURY

2nd March 2006 04:04 UTC

http://fs5.deviantart.com/i/2004/353...y_mattfury.png

ASD5A

2nd March 2006 11:40 UTC

...matt you fail at being funny and photoshoping

JFASI

2nd March 2006 19:00 UTC

You suck.









That makes twice!

jheriko

2nd March 2006 20:04 UTC

Cut him some slack. I thought it was pretty good :P

JFASI

2nd March 2006 23:20 UTC

It is, and that was my way of paying tribute:D

ASD5A

4th March 2006 09:21 UTC

come on.. the check boxes arent right under each other
and the distance to each isnt allways the same.
and i miss the checkbox saying "infinite times"
but the idea was fairly good

MaTTFURY

4th March 2006 09:29 UTC

it was done in paint ... :p

JaVS_v2.5

4th March 2006 12:07 UTC

Haha, the check-buttons are not in a fixed position.. :cry:

good effort :)

JFASI

4th March 2006 16:01 UTC

6 out of 10.

redi jedi

26th March 2006 00:40 UTC

milkdrop doesnt offer enough flexibility, afaik it lets you manipulate pre existing algorithms rather than provide your own. this is why avs is more popular imo.
wrong! in md you start with a black screen, and on that screen you draw shapes/lines that fallow any equation you can come up with, then you warp the basic renders with effects, adding the music reaction wherever you see fit.

there are two reasions avs is more popular;
1) its a proven fact.... noobs like GUIs, you may hate me for saying it but if you look in the MD forum, the only people that ask for a gui have less than 5 posts, and usuly that is there first one.

2) 3d shapes.


thats pretty much it. oh and the reasion MD still looks the same is..... you still have nothing but stock presets.... it you only have avs presets from 2002 it would look the same to... go to my website(in my tag) on the sets page there is an allpresets.rar that contains all the presets on my computer(havent weeded through them though) theres around 7000 if i rember correctly, oh and if ya didnt know i've updated the source to give preset writers more options

also i think avs has more documentation(although it needs more) witch i'm sure has an effect. avs presets are also easier to break apart and decifer, most "artist" types dont like to look at code

JFASI

26th March 2006 12:42 UTC

.rar? Bah!!

PAK-9

26th March 2006 14:39 UTC

Originally posted by redi jedi
wrong! in md you start with a black screen, and on that screen you draw shapes/lines that fallow any equation you can come up with
What if I dont want my shapes to follow an equation? As far as I can tell there isnt even an 'if' statement in milkdrop so producing complex shapes will always require some pretty ugly hacking.

Originally posted by redi jedi
then you warp the basic renders with effects, adding the music reaction wherever you see fit.
This functionality can be replicated with a superscope and DM in AVS, milkdrop just does it at a higher resolution and faster (which is valuable, dont get me wrong)

Originally posted by redi jedi
there are two reasions avs is more popular;
1) its a proven fact.... noobs like GUIs, you may hate me for saying it but if you look in the MD forum, the only people that ask for a gui have less than 5 posts, and usuly that is there first one.
It isnt just noobs like like gui's, making it easier to input data, be it code or internal variable values is important for all users. The avs interface is pretty crappy but at least you can enter large amounts of code and work with it in a traditional "windows text box" way.

Originally posted by redi jedi
2) 3d shapes.
Meaning? If you mean stereoscopics then perhaps, but 3D shape projections... that is done all the time in avs.

I personally think milkdrop does a good job with fast visualisations, but it doesn't have the variety of AVS. In avs a noob can throw something together very quickly and be really pleased with the results, whereas an advanced user can do some really pretty hardcore coding.

I will finish by saying take a look at PAK-9 AVS 5 and tell me how much of that you could replicate in Milkdrop.

redi jedi

26th March 2006 19:13 UTC

What if I dont want my shapes to follow an equation?
oh you want it to follow... what? there is nothing else that could define the position and size of a shape other than an equation...

As far as I can tell there isnt even an 'if' statement in milkdrop so producing complex shapes will always require some pretty ugly hacking.
1 - then you arent looking.
2 - if(condition,valtrue,valfalse) works anywere


It isnt just noobs like like gui's, making it easier to input data, be it code or internal variable values is important for all users.
md's menu system is easy to use, after you learn what does what. IMHO avs's 'user friendly' gui sucks.


The avs interface is pretty crappy but at least you can enter large amounts of code and work with it in a traditional "windows text box" way.
it simply doesnt feel right to me, and yes i have spent some time with avs. oh and i dont like
the "windows text box" way
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by redi jedi
2) 3d shapes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Quote:
Meaning? If you mean stereoscopics then perhaps, but 3D shape projections... that is done all the time in avs i mean 3d shapes are easyer in avs, at least cool looking ones, texer2 is cool as shit, in md all 3d shapes have to be done with a wave so its just dots or lines, no solid surfaces, inless you draw one with lines( i will admit that can get hacktacular)

I personally think milkdrop does a good job with fast visualisations, but it doesn't have the variety of AVS.
ya you guys got us on the variety, for many reasions. the gui lures in noobs, who turn into harcore coders, witch equals more content. plus the abilty to add modules is very nice, i've been trying to come up with a way to add a similar feature into md(dont think its gonna work given the current structre of md).

In avs a noob can throw something together very quickly and be really pleased with the results, whereas an advanced user can do some really pretty hardcore coding.
the same is true in MD, especialy if they use a template(with beatdection, and some reuseable code) granted you kinda need to read the "manuals"... humm mabye i'll put up a discription or diagram on my website of the inner workings of md, because once you know that you can start doing the fun stuff...

I will finish by saying take a look at PAK-9 AVS 5 and tell me how much of that you could replicate in Milkdrop.
dont mind if i do:
sit and stare - no
nebulas - posible
time probe - posible
fabric - posible, would require some crafty coding
cwts - possible
dark matter - with my new beta version - posible
elementary - of course
ephemeral - humm mabye, if i knew more about 3d math would prolly be pretty easy
beanies - nope
shooting star - could come close
droplets - posible
blocks - hey cool preset! with out menu would be posible, but logic would be hard
jet wash - posible
nemoorange - posible, crafty coding again
bombs away - would be hard
frames of reality - posible
pandora - similar has already been done
darkmatter - posible

so basicly the only thing avs can do that md cant is complex 3d shapes that the avrage user has no chance of creating.

and I will finish by saying i'd like to see if avs can recreate the glowstick presets.. you can find them here-> glowsticks and get them to respond to music they way they do in MD. IMHO the most important part of a music visulation is the visulations reaction to music.... call me crazy, but i'm sorry to say this is the area where MD simply beats the crap out of avs....

i guess what is all comes down it is avs is easyer to use, and with time can produce some images that MD cant. while MD takes a little longer to learn it produces higher quality movments, and reacts to music better, while the drawing is limited(4 custom waves, 512 points per wave, you can only draw so much).

if you want a gui and a program behind it with power, you should check out vsxu.com ---- freaking sweet! its still in alpha but when there done will be better than md and avs put together..... if they dont fuck it up.

Yathosho

26th March 2006 19:20 UTC

Originally posted by redi jedi
its a proven fact.... noobs like GUIs
i'd actually prefer an onscreen gui like milkdrop has, probably reminds people that this shit should all run in fullscreen not in a stupid window.

i kinda like the attempt of vsx ultra, though i havn't gotten much into it. looks good, but i don't want to learn something new :rolleyes:

what i like most about avs (and probably that's what milkdrop misses) is that you can create nice presets where the renders don't look that obvious as renders. the trans effects in avs simply rule, most of all the convolution filter and colormap (at least in my book).

redi jedi

26th March 2006 20:35 UTC

i will agree, avs has some cool effects that are hard to recreate in MD, but to me it is all just to static, its hard to make things react to music the way i want them to, as i stated before, a visulation should react to music, in MD adding music reaction to a static creation is easy, in avs its hard to create those logical connections to what the preset is doing based on the music, alot of my MD presets run off of a set of "mtime"(created with my beat-detection algorthem) variables passed from the main preest to the rest via the 'q' vars, and everything in the preset, colors, positions, effects are all made from the base mtime variables... last time i check there isnt any way to "connect" the whole preset to the music in such a way in avs (although i did hear something about someone having added global variables, i guess that might do it)



oh and vsxu is pretty cool, if you guys havent checked it out theres a video at there website. there are only like 3-4 visuals made for it so far, but it also has modules like avs, but the "design enviroment" is a 2d "desktop" and you plop the modules on the desktop and make connections between them... only just started looking at it, but it has some mad crazy looking modules(mesh import/generation, texture import/modification, much more too. once its finished i may drop MD and go to vsxu. i'm also thinking about adding a few modules derived from the better parts of milkdrop(the eval libary kicks ass in MD) and the screen effects...

PAK-9

26th March 2006 21:52 UTC

Originally posted by redi jedi
jet wash - posible
:weird:
I see, well much as I would like to take your word on the fact that model loading, phong lit triangle rasterisation and z dependant sprite rendering is "possible" in md, I might have to ask for some proof that something even remotely similar has ever been done with md, bearing in mind that this hasnt even been possible in avs until relatively recently. Unless by 'possible' you meant 'theoretically possible in a really abstract sort of way' (c:\program files\winamp\plugins\>rename vis_avs.dll vis_milk.dll)

Originally posted by redi jedi
so basicly the only thing avs can do that md cant is complex 3d shapes that the avrage user has no chance of creating.
There are a very large number of AVS'rs who I would consider 'average' that have produced 3D presets. Mainly, I feel, because the AVS community has some good tutorials and help on that sort of thing because people are often interested in it.


Originally posted by redi jedi
and I will finish by saying i'd like to see if avs can recreate the glowstick presets.. you can find them here-> glowsticks and get them to respond to music they way they do in MD.
Producing that effect in AVS is pretty trivial, but I'm not sure what music response you are referring too because they seem pretty random.

Originally posted by redi jedi
IMHO the most important part of a music visulation is the visulations reaction to music.... call me crazy, but i'm sorry to say this is the area where MD simply beats the crap out of avs....
You are right in a sense, one of the biggest mistakes that all AVS makers make at some point (and some never get over) is incorporating good music response into their presets. It is a shame too because AVS is extremely capable in that respect (more so than md I would argue) because you have Spectrum and oscilloscope data for 3 channels (left, right, centre) every frame to play with... whats more you have 2 million item arrays with which to play with that music data before you use it. Take "Droplets" for example (sorry, I know its lame to keep citing my own pack) or the terminally unpopular "CWT", there is some singal processing going on behind the scenes to make those presets, which you simply cannot achieve without loops and arrays.

What it boils down to for me is that when I look at md presets I just think "this looks like every single other md preset I've ever seen" whereas I fairly often look at AVS presets and think "this is something I've not seen done in AVS before". Sure, for projecting up at clubs and parties md probably is 'better' in the sense that it is high res, fast, and makes people go "ooh pretty colours". But frankly I couldnt care less about that, I dont make AVS presets so people can use them at clubs, I make them because AVS is a fun tool to play around with, its like a music driven sandbox where I can make little toys to play with (getting a bit deep now), md doesnt give me the same sense of "ooh what can I do with this?!" because the customisation options are that much more limited. I realise I'm essentially re-iterating the 'its less varied' argument but I think its value really cant be downplayed because thats what keeps people using it and active in the community. Plus the more you use it the more you appreciate other peoples work and realise what it took to create them... somehow that gives them more value when you view them; thats why I gave you that earbashing about Jet Wash, to you its just something that is probably "possible" in md, to AVS'rs its "wow, I never thought I'd see this in AVS". I wouldnt really expect you to look at it through and AVS'rs eyes but thats what you are not seeing.

phew. oops, had the 'preach' tag on. [/preach]

redi jedi

26th March 2006 23:02 UTC

(c:\program files\winamp\plugins\>rename vis_avs.dll vis_milk.dll)
thats funny.

dont get me wrong it wouldnt be done in the same way, but there is alot posible in MD that you've never bothered trying to figure out.(no IF statment?!?!?!, what the hell can you do with out an if statemtn?!)

you've got me on arrays and loops(i'm working on implementing that, but prolly only with function calls, ie
array(array identifer,index,value) just gotta figure out how to get the value out... and a loop(start, end, code) just gotta figre out how to not execute the code part till instide the function....

Producing that effect in AVS is pretty trivial, but I'm not sure what music response you are referring too because they seem pretty random.
theres alot of remixes there, some arent so great, but quite a few are insane, although just like you where saying i cant expect an AVSr to see it like an MDer.

oh and once you get enough modules loded to do all that stuff your talking about, the gui loses its 'easy to use' aspect.

i dont write presets in MD to be shown in clubs ither, but the fact that when someone wants to use something in a club, they choose MD speeks for itself, avs is to rough around the edges for me, and i'm apperently not the only one, up the res, up the frame rate, then avs might be "better" then MD, although in all reality they pretty much do the same thing, and both do a farily comperable job at it, they just have diffrent specilazions.


pardon any spelling mistakes, i'm at work so i dont have time to proof read.

i'll get started on recreating some of your effects, you get started on making some of mine... then mabye we can switch, i'll make some avs, you make some MD... this could be interisting...



oh and on a nother note... what language are modules writen in. i guess if i'm gonna bitch about avs sucking so much, i could atleast look into "fixing it"

PAK-9

26th March 2006 23:21 UTC

Originally posted by redi jedi
oh and on a nother note... what language are modules writen in. i guess if i'm gonna bitch about avs sucking so much, i could atleast look into "fixing it"
APE's ('modules') are written in C++ and usually some asm for speed.

You can look at the source (http://www.nullsoft.com/free/avs/) but you cant really 'fix' it.. the reason it is slow is that it is software rendered, you cant speed it up short of recoding it all to be hardware accelerated. Most of us (/all of us who could) dont think its worth it.

redi jedi

27th March 2006 00:24 UTC

so how about reimplementing some of the renders in APE's like a dm that renders directly to the screen(i'm assuming it passes textures back and forth, witch are finaly renderd by the core software)

PAK-9

27th March 2006 08:35 UTC

in an APE you basically have an inherited class to play with (class C_THISCLASS : public C_RBASE ), in which there is a virtual function 'render'


virtual int render(char visdata[2][2][576], int isBeat, int *framebuffer, int *fbout, int w, int h);


You simply write to the chunk of memory "framebuffer" that AVS passes you in RGB0 format; you cant really bypass this drawing mechanism since it represets the fundemental architecture of the program. Under the hood AVS just passes a pointer to the memory containing the frambuffer to each APE (all the built in effects are just APE's as well) in turn before swapping its buffers. Hence why you would need to entirely recode AVS to see any real benefit. All of the APE's are already about as efficient as they can be for software rendering.

redi jedi

27th March 2006 20:15 UTC

ahhh i see, that would be hard to work-around....
and actualy i guess after you update the main framework to use hardware acceleration, you'd prolly have to update the APE's as well... that would get ugly quick

toqer

14th April 2006 11:21 UTC

I use AVS cause the overlay mode rules, but if I could use MD instead, i'd drop AVS in a heartbeat (only because these AVS folks are so stuck up)

JaY FaTBoY

21st April 2006 15:47 UTC

The direct answer is "Because AVS".
More people are using it, by far, and there are lots and of reasons to do it. Everyone loved Geiss, then AVS came out and moved it away. Geiss makes Milkdrop, Geiss couldn't equalize the score. Oh well. Now we have to deal with two typos of cool visual thingies, while waiting for that fridge thing to feed all our hungry souls. Hopefully it will score big time. /hint - Milkdrop did't score with me as it never managed to run on me old videocards back in "2000-2002"/.

Doggy Dog

21st April 2006 18:21 UTC

Originally posted by JaY FaTBoY
Milkdrop did't score with me as it never managed to run on me old videocards back in "2000-2002"/.
Hey hey, look who's back. :D

Same for me, I couldn't run Milkdrop then, and now, when I can, I just never bother with it... out of principle I guess.

Tuggummi

21st April 2006 21:09 UTC

ZOMG MILKDROP!!!! LOLOLOLOLO!!!! n00b!!!



Why AVS people are so "stuck up" like toqer likes to say? Well it simply because we get shit like this from the left from the right and right into our faces A LOT, now i don't know what the milkdrop scene has "suffered", but i bet it's a lot less than the AVS scene has, after all aren't all milkdrop users so much more intelligent than AVS users? Hmm?

Part of AVS's success comes from it being a part of winamp for a long long time (from the very begining when it was still WVS), but you can't really blaim AVS's success on that, i mean if the software is faulty it wouldn't prosper, right? Just look at what happened to Internet Explorer, it's part of windows which 90% of the worlds computers use, yet more and more people choose some other browser. So what's the catch on AVS? It certainly isn't the speed, people have complained about the speed for aeons (in internet time) for now yet they still come back, what's up with that? Personally i think milkdrop is nothing more than a superscope and a dynamic movement, when speaking in AVS terms, sure milkdrop can do these two things a helluva lot faster, but like history has shown, very few people will settle for speed only. AVS simply is, like everyone else has above mentioned a lot lot lot lot lot lot lot lotx10 more versatile than milkdrop, milkdrop is a lot lot lot lot lot lot lotx10 faster than AVS, but it's capabilities are very limited.
So AVS is "newbie" friendly, i honestly doubt what's wrong with that? Sure we get a lot of newbie presets and we don't appreciate them at all, but atleast the software as whole is a lot more easier to approach than milkdrop.

But anyway, you could argue (and most likely will) argue endlessly about the differences between AVS and Milkdrop and which is better, but will that really accomplish anything? To me milkdrop is still and always will be just a faster way to render a superscope and a dynamic movement.

End of story, go home.

JaY FaTBoY

22nd April 2006 11:33 UTC

Ooooh, grandma, what big letters you have ;)

Tuggummi

23rd April 2006 00:18 UTC

Im a big man with a big (beer) belly, therefor i have big letters.

Fork me on GitHub