dna598 wrote:No one said they were gonna help me out bro.
I'm aware of that. It's not clear why you felt the need to mention it.
dna598 wrote:The fact that you never used the tape start function doesnt mean it not going to be used eh???
Correct, but irrelevant since my comment was specifically addressed to your false claim that:
dna598 wrote:no one has used and seen how good that tape stop vst actually is.
As you now know, at least one person has.
dna598 wrote:Do you actually realise that a tape has to wind up to start????
I realise that. If I ever try to faithfully emulate a tape machine, I'll certainly include a tape start function.
dna598 wrote:If you want a realistic effect that is what must be simulated.
If you want a realistic
tape start effect, you'll need something that emulates a tape start realistically. Yes, there's no question about it.
dna598 wrote:Why implement a half assed design if m4l is so empowering? (and you paid for it)
Because what you rudely disparage as a 'half assed' (because it doesn't conform to your specific preferences), works exactly as I'd like it to. I judged the opportunity cost associated with researching and implementing a tape start function to be too high, relative to what I could expect to gain from doing so. I think you'll find that a similar explanation accounts for most decisions to exclude functionality from software.
It would be useful for you to realise that your idea that a tape stop plugin should also include a tape start emulation, is a mere
preference. Other people may or may not share your preference. Contrary to what you seem to be assuming, the fact that a person doesn't share your preference, or finds it less important than you do, doesn't make them wrong or ignorant, or stupid.
I hope this information helps you put similar situations you may run into in the future, into proper perspective.