Roland supernatural is still based on samples, its Rolands answer to the Yamaha SA2 voices... which just like Roland combine modeling with sampling..

Back in the late 80's, I had a video cassette of Eric Persing demoing a Roland controller with breath control, aftertouch, mod wheel. and pitch bend.. He used Sax samples from Roland, and played the most realistic sax for the time period.

I remember discussions on that in other forums... At Musikerforum, some synth specialists thought Roland SuperNatural Acoustic sounds were indeed modeling, while Yamaha‘s SA2 voices were just based on „scripting“. Scripting is largely using various chunks of samples in flexible combinations depending on how tje sound is played on the keys. Modeling changes the actual waveform in real time. That‘s quite a difference.
If you think of how you can gradually (!) change the sound of a piano in the Integra with the sound character control (not like just changing how mellow or bright it is, but much more substantially), this is an indicator that there is real modeling involved.

Bachus is correct in that when it comes to "Supernatural" Roland uses small samples and apply behavior modeling. Shall we call it a hybrid system? This reminds me of my B5 organ by a French company. They combine samples and some sort of physical modeling. The library is 1GB vs 4 MB of GSI VB3. For that matter, Roland's "Supernatural" VST libraries are only 200-400 MB if I remember correctly. If it was all sample based, it would have been 10-15 GB!

Yes, but that’s no contradiction, I still think Yamaha‘s SA2 sounds are more based on samples than Roland SN-A sounds. Roland has never given any sample sizes for its SN-A collection, which again supports that modeling plays a big role. AFAIK, Yamaha does state WaveROM sizes for Tyros 5 and Genos, in which the SA2 voices are included. Another hint that it‘s more scripting than modeling...
About using small samples for physical modeling: I think it‘s more a theoretical debate, actually I assume in one way or another sample data always flows into modeling of any acoustic instrument. GEM also stated that the RP-X piano module didn‘t use samples at all, but I‘m convinced that the modeling data has to be somehow derived from samples, otherwise the developers would have no idea how a waveform would have to be shaped to create a piano-like sound. It‘s just the question is it more rigid sample chunks put together or a very flexible modeling in which the waveform curve reacts totally flexibly, which would be real modeling. At least that‘s how I imagine his technology...

Sounds good, Fran. Recently, I acquired an SRX card for one of my Roland modules. I thought about the Integra7 but it is a little bulky for gigs.

In the Roland Fantom SNA voices have been added in the1.5 beta
According to Beta testers each of them comes with a set of samples..

As far as i know onlythe super natural organs in my jupiter 80 are fully virtual instrument..
The rest of them uses samples..

I remember discussions on that in other forums... At Musikerforum, some synth specialists thought Roland SuperNatural Acoustic sounds were indeed modeling, while Yamaha‘s SA2 voices were just based on „scripting“. Scripting is largely using various chunks of samples in flexible combinations depending on how tje sound is played on the keys. Modeling changes the actual waveform in real time. That‘s quite a difference.
If you think of how you can gradually (!) change the sound of a piano in the Integra with the sound character control (not like just changing how mellow or bright it is, but much more substantially), this is an indicator that there is real modeling involved.