Module Finder is live!

Along with v2.0 firmware, we also just released the Module Finder page on our site:

https://metamodule.info/modulefinder

This is based on and inspired by @gabrielroth 's module finder page.

The idea is that you can filter by module tag (LFO, Sequencer, etc) and also brand/plugin. You can sort by CPU usage (min/max range) and also set the block size you prefer.

Hopefully this is useful (I’ve already discovered some gems!). We’ll keep it updated with load test numbers as new firmware and plugins are released.

Please feel free to report any issues here!

12 Likes

This is awesome! I will feel a small sense of pride every time I use it.

Can I suggest linking the module and plugin names to the relevant pages on the VCV Library? That’s probably the easiest way to figure out which modules will meet a particular need.

Also, there’s a typo in the tags for Unfiltered Volume 1 Indent Saturation: “ADistortion” should be “Distortion.”

3 Likes

Excellent. Please could you add links to the module details in VCV.

I think that’s a typo in the original Rack plugin.json file, so @trickyflemming would need to update it. Luckily it still matches for the “distortion” tag

Good idea. I think we can do that

1 Like

Thanks for taking the time to create this!

That is awesome! That will help a lot!

Great stuff Dan, with so many modules now available this is a big bonus, props to gabrielroth for starting this ball rolling.

1 Like

If you wish to add VCV Image URL, Manual URL, and VCV slug let me know, I have been keeping a spreadsheet current.

lol

3 Likes

OK, we added links: the module name links to the VCV page for the module, and the plugin name links to the VCV plugin page.

4 Likes

Works great, thanks!

I tried it and it immediately melted my module :grinning_face:

1 Like

Excellent idea, that was really missing !!

Ok lol this should work though @danngreen - it just takes a while to load right

1 Like

Great, this is really nifty. Thank you!

Right, it just take a while to load the module, but it runs great after that. I might need to modify the cpu tester code to account for things like this, e.g. run the patch for a few samples before starting the measurement.