Suggestion: LMMS as a VST3 (or CLAP) for use in other DAWs

[mjolnir]

LMMS is progressing nicely but slowly.
Perhaps a way to maximize the gains for serious music makers is to make an edition of LMMS which runs as a VST3 in other DAW hosts. (or CLAP if it's easier to program that).

Currently, DAWs such as FL Studio and MuLab do have that option. There's a separate file which is the plugin module and it can be installed or moved to the right folder. MuLab, for example, has the MuLab "app" (the DAW program), and then alternatively the MuLab "plugin" module.

I think there used to be other DAWs that could be run inside of other DAWs as a plugin, but I forget which ones.

The primary advantage is then we can benefit from the advanced DAW features that LMMS doesn't have yet (which could take too long to program), and yet still benefit from all the wonderful user-friendliness and features of LMMS.

For example, REAPER seriously lacks the kind of step editor that LMMS actually already is. If I could load LMMS as a synchronized plugin (MIDI sync to host, WAV audio sync to host), then it would be possible to do the percussion and accompanyment in LMMS more efficiently than FL Studio in some ways and with the advantages that LMMS brings to the table.

In FL Studio, the sync isn't perfect (as it is in some VST3 arpeggiators), so it syncs after a delay of at least 1 measure|bar.
If LMMS had issues, they could also sync to right after the first bar. It's like a "countdown to synchronization".

But after that initial delay, it flows as usual and chases the DAW host transport controls.

LMMS devs, you might have bitten off more than you can chew if you seek to compete with the huge commercial DAWs out there, but this would be a competitive shortcut to keep LMMS competitive and on the map. It might be a better use of programming time and patience. And CLAP and maybe VST3 programming probably have support and documentation for programmers.

LMMS doesn't need to support VST3 and CLAP internally, if instead it can be loaded as one of those in another DAW.
Please think seriously about it. I'm a current user of all the aforementioned DAWs, I really think this could bring LMMS into the fold much better than trying to add a bunch of other features. LMMS is currently lean and functional. You could maximize your gains and other feature requests wouldn't have as much bothersome pressure if those features were provided by the host DAW(s).

Peace be with you and happy 2026.
Sincerely,
mjolnir

[Kurt]

I only want to comment..., so please don't misunderstand me.
Currently (if I understand the 'problems' of the LMMS-development team correctly) the heaviest concern is to catch up with the current level of technology. Making LMMS work as a plugin itself would increase their workload again heavily. And... to be honest: It is unlikely, that really many users would consider to use LMMS as plugin (especially if one know, how complex LMMS already is).

So ... if this development now also tries to go such a path, LMMS will never ever come to a new official version - not even as Alphe, even less Beta and ... not to mention at all a release.
I have - anyway - stopped using LMMS and... to speak frankly: I'm satisfied to be able to use LMMS' internal plugins and don't feel any desire to have this thing become a plugin (and to some degree that's possible).
I'm pretty sure, it's much less effort to simply release a newer LMMS Alpha than converting the whole thing into a plugin.

Reflect! LMMS has already a quite usable and effective automation and modulation concept. Converting it to be useful as plugin would make it necessary to make the automation of LMMS automatable from a DAW host... - what a mess this would be... (and that's only one of many other points to take into account).
Are you really sure, you thought about this suggestion thoroughly...?

[mjolnir]

...
I have - anyway - stopped using LMMS and...

You expect me to take your rebuttal seriously when you don't even use LMMS according to your own confession?
MuLab has a plugin version. FL Studio has a plugin version. Possibly even Reason and Bitwig, too. Supposedly some versions of Ableton Live, too. It's reasonable.

Actually, to switch to a plugin and to just finish that and then relax development a bit would take pressure off of the devs because they wouldn't have to support EVERY feature, since host DAWs have plenty of features.

For example, LMMS doesn't do freezing and crossfades as easily as REAPER. But Reaper can't do drum step programming as easily as LMMS. Make and LMMS plugin, and problem solved for user who use LMMS as a plugin in REAPER.

I DO use LMMS and I hope the LMMS developers optimize their development for the most results out of their hard work. Again, since the average DAW can do a lot of things, instead of trying to reinvent EVERY DAW feature, just making an LMMS edition that can run as a plugin with current features would be a huge jump forward.

Peace be untu the LMMS devs.

[musikbear]

make an edition of LMMS which runs as a VST3 in other DAW hosts. (or CLAP if it's easier to program that).

This is one of the good ideas that most like never will see implementation, unless you yourself makes it. The dev-situation/ availability is not there.

[mjolnir]

make an edition of LMMS which runs as a VST3 in other DAW hosts. (or CLAP if it's easier to program that).

This is one of the good ideas that most like never will see implementation, unless you yourself makes it. The dev-situation/ availability is not there.

If the "dev-situtation" isn't here, then how are any improvements at all happening to LMMS?
Surely it's easier to make a CLAP or a VST than an entire DAW? LMMS has plenty of feaures and doesn't really need to implement every single feature of it's competitors. All I am suggesting is a shortcut to keep LMMS viable and competitive without having to struggle to reinvent every feature that most DAWs already have. Just be LMMS as LMMS is and provide a pathway into other DAWs and the user popularity and publicity will probably go up.

However, if the "dev-situation" isn't there, then maybe instead of asking for feature suggestions, the LMMS devs should go on a publicity campaign to get more devs in on LMMS. Probably just having this site isn't enough. Send out emails, hunt down other devs from github and programmer discussion sites, put up messages at Linuxmusicians.com and other sites, make a YouTube video asking for more devs, etc. You probably could think of more techniques than me. Post on music production forums.

Don't give up, MusikBear.