Are ProChannel modules still being developed?

In the beginning when ProChannel was introduced Overloud came on board and added the VKFX Suite and the reverb, then Boz came onboard with the 10+db, Panipulator and a couple of other I think, Softube gave us the free Saturation Knob and the Softube Mix pack modules (paid) were also added as PC compatible and with all that promise it seems to have died. Feel free to fill in bits of history and plugins I missed.
Recently we've had some Cakewalk updates and releases of 3 high end plugins for the PC so clearly Cakewalk don't see PC as a dead standard.


It would be nice to see some other developers come on line but before that happens the GUI for displaying the available plugins needs some tidying up.

That would be cool. Is there another Prochannel delay plugin or is it just the one from Overloud? 

Yeah a nice delay unit would really round out the Pro Channel for me. It's the most-used plugin in my FX Bin insert.
 

chuckebaby
I wish they would give us a way to allow plug ins to be modular sized for use in the PC.
Even if we could add a smaller gui like the FX chains.

Yep, so easy to do as it's just a striped down FX Chain.

 
And some PC Menu options, the list is too long for one menu. Even a simple, submenu by type/manufacture would help. Submenus exist, as the Style Dials has one.

I would love a Klanghelm collaboration, which would answer requst for an RMS meter. Having SSDR, with a flyout to it's full VST would be cool. 
 
I think a transient designer would be cool too, maybe extend that XLN connection.

The 6 modules of RC20, could be 6 individual PC Modules, in the same way the VKFX comes as a full VST, but is broken down into PC parts.

 
P&M stuff looks like would fit easy too, above in the XLN pic and here.

 
I know it's down to the manufacturers, but it makes the PC format so much more appealing and sonar with it. To have these to choose from would cover masses of ground.
http://www.plugandmix.com/products/software
 

I would like to see the existing Cakewalk Pro Channel Modules updated & kept a bit "fresh" . This year I bought the cakewalk prochannel module package at christmas. I was astonished, I had to install manual and not via Command center. It would be nice if the old "dust" could be removed :-)

Kamikaze
The 6 modules of RC20, could be 6 individual PC Modules, in the same way the VKFX comes as a full VST, but is broken down into PC parts.

Oh wow I would LOVE to see the RC-20 modules as ProChannel modules. This plugin is awesome and I use it on every project, however, I rarely use all 6 modules at a time. Also, it would be nice to be able to rearrange their signal flow. 
 
In fact this plugin would be a GREAT free addition to Sonar if the two of them could work out a deal. 

Dickie Fredericks

chuckebaby
I wish they would give us a way to allow plug ins to be modular sized for use in the PC.
Even if we could add a smaller gui like the FX chains.

This... Do away with the FX bin altogether. Id love to be able to load what I want into PCand have a fly button on them as the EQ does.

Yes and this would also solve the problem of the vertical space wasted when using multiple FX Chain modules with only one plugin in them (because you need other PC modules between them for your signal chain). I envision being able to just insert any plugin into the PC without using an FX Chain. It would only take up a thin strip in the channel. The flyout would have A/B sides with one side the plugin's usual interface, the other being for custom controls which you could set up to control multiple parameters at once.

I'm not sure how changeable the current architecture is, because SONAR emulates a traditional studio environment. The original idea was that the ProChannel would let users create a custom mixer architecture with channel strips that had interchangeable modules. The FX Rack was intended to be more like the rack processors in studios (e.g., rack mount effects and such). 
 
If it could be changed, I think Kamikaze's idea of strips and flyouts probably would make the most sense if you could "tear off" the flyouts and place them anywhere on the screen. Then if you didn't want to use FX Racks, you could just eliminate seeing them. This would also preserve compatibility with older projects that used the FX Rack. But if you want to keep having the bifurcated approach, you could do that as well.

Just use FX chains within prochannel.   Than prochannel can be whatever you need it to be as long as you have VSTs that do what you're looking for.   Unless I'm missing something, why isn't that the solution to the prochannel requests?

Sandwiching FX Chains between PC modules in most cases takes up no more space than comparable PC modules. In fact, FX Chains can take up less space.

I think a modification of the PC fx chain for use with single vst/dx plugin would work well. Then all it would need is a button to select to open the select plugin menu and another to open the gui in a flyout.

True, however; if you want 20 plug-ins before and 20 plug-ins after the QCEQ, they take up no more space than one before or after. That and the person making the original comment about sandwiching FX Chains and PC modules has admitted they do not use PC modules in the first place and instead are looking for a redesign of how plug-ins are displayed in the PC. It would appear your interest too.
 
The topic of the thread could not be more misleading, the examples more self serving. Are there ways the PC could be modified by Cakewalk? Of course there are. Is it the best use of Cakewalk resources? Can't say for sure but I doubt it. I hope they don't bother creating a flyout option for plug-ins that already have freestanding UIs. This is especially true for manufacturers that have gone to the trouble of providing scalable UIs.
 
That said, did Cakewalk create this forum to serve as a discussion area for new features? They did not. This area is intended to discuss how to use the existing product. Cakewalk provided another area to discuss feature requests. I have not bothered to look for existing feature requests to satisfy this thread but it would not surprise me if they were already on file.

Kamikaze
When you collapse the FX chain, it would be smaller with lots of VSTs, but it would take about 9 to be the same as the simple header I suggested in post 8 . 20 is an odd example though, as you can only view 5 at a time in the FX chain, and then you scroll through them.

No more odd than examples posted by users that they never experience or degenerate cases that do not need to exist based on the current design.
 

Kamikaze
The fly out would just be the normal VST GUI opening, I wasn't suggesting a re-design, it does not need to be that complicated really.

It provides little if any advantage over simply opening the plug-in UI, is a redesign with unknown complexity. At least, I doubt you have an idea how complex the change would be.
 

Kamikaze
Yep there are feature requests in (though I have lost faith in that area meaning anything, before or after it's move).

So place faith in posting here instead? Why not. Post in an area where the thread is sure to be buried and forgotten quickly.
 

Kamikaze
I think the answer to the topic title is 'no' currently.

I think users cannot speak with any authority on the subject. Sure we can review the past and guess about the future. What is the value in that? I suspect the Boz additions were a surprise. Who is to say there will not be more?
 
 

Kamikaze
It's just an FX chain with most of the functionality removed that are required for FX chains. I can' see and just how it can be that complicated really.

This is inaccurate. Your request is more than simply removing some FX chain features.
 

Kamikaze
It's a forum, we are discussing. It's what you do in forums.

The people that pay for this forum have asked that feature requests be posted and discussed elsewhere.