Re 2) Do you find it normal that an audio plugin now spends more time rendering its UI using a CPU renderer than processing audio? That physically based rendering, normal maps and what not are not free lunch!

Yes, 100MB disk space is a lot, but why to have that silly skeuomorphic UI in the first place? Drop it and you won't need those 100MB of textures.

Or do you believe that the user is so dumb that they won't recognize a knob from a button unless it is shiny, knurled and properly lit?

Re 3) This is not about being polite but about calling poor engineering decision out for what it is. So I am standing behind my comment.

Re 4) " We are not after photo-realism. Instead natural lighting effect can help getting into a software by making logical groups and also convey value. "

So not after photo realism but speaking about "natural lighting effect". Isn't that a bit of a contradiction?

And what value is being conveyed exactly? That I am getting a piece of nice, heavy, solid brushed metal? I am not a musician but the ones I know are pretty much all loathing this kind of stuff because it is only consuming loads of resources for no reason and in most cases makes the tools more difficult to use. It is a sound plugin, for heaven's sake, not something to exhibit in a vitrine!

Re 5) Well, you don't use OpenGL, correct. My mistake. However, you have reinvented the wheel using software rendering instead, which isn't even hardware accelerated. Not sure what is worse.

There is also no "hate speech" to drop. Hate speech has a fairly specific definition. Criticism is not hate speech, thank you.