This post is in reply to Stxx problem.
 
This sounds like it might have something to do with the write mode that you are in. There are 3 different modes, Latch, Overwrite, and Touch mode. I would bet that you have it in touch mode because the expected behavior is this
 
Touch mode overwrites any existing automation data for the currently armed parameter only when the parameter is moved with the mouse or a MIDI controller. Automation writing stops when the parameter is released, and the parameter returns to any previously automated position. This mode is useful if you want to update a previous write pass, appending new automation data only where desired. When using a touch-sensitive MIDI controller, new automation data will only overwrite existing automation data when you physically touch a control.

I use a Mackie Control, the original. It works well with Sonar for fader control both tracks and buses. Pan is great too. I have no problem using it for automation. Mine is setup with touch enabled so touching a fader will select a track or buss. Obviously bank and channel buttons work well. The transport control works very well too.The way its setup with Sonar it has always had a pause ability. The jog wheel is nicely supported. Where the MC is less useful is with plugins and pro channel. This is due to no real update to the MC dll. 
 
I disagree with the statement that it is not a standard. To me it is. Whether a company implements it correctly in their emulation is a very different thing. Not that that can't be done. The SDK for it is available and as long as the hardware is capable of utilizing its protocol it should work. 

Azsilow3 wrote;
Up to now, there is no "universal" plug-in with feed back support. I am slowly moving in that direction, but I see zero interest. That does not stop me (it is a fun project) but it does not encourage to advance. The only other way to fully support hardware surface Y is to write specific plug-in for that surface. Mackie protocol is just a proprietary protocol for particular devices, it is not a specification what arbitrary surface should send with corresponding DAW reaction, and so the plug-ins in SONAR.

I'm not sure what you mean here about feedback? True the MC protocol is a proprietary one but it is supported by most DAWs and some other programs such as Vegas Pro Video. 
 
The only DAW I know of that doesn't support it is MixBus but it has no MIDI support anyway. 

azslow3

John
I'm not sure what you mean here about feedback? True the MC protocol is a proprietary one but it is supported by most DAWs and some other programs such as Vegas Pro Video. 

I mean there are generic plug-ins for simple MIDI (Generic and ACT), but there are no such plug-ins with MC protocol support. In the first case, code X can be configured to produce (arbitrary) action Y. In the second, code X always produce action Y. In case hardware controller does not produce exactly the same X, action Y is not possible with such device. Example: with Nanokorg in MC mode, switching between tracks and buses is not possible because there is no such (hardcoded) control and there is no way to change the reaction on other codes (except with the code modification).
Most "simple" devices can work in not MC mode and so can be used with generic plug-ins to configure desired actions. The only problem is with feedback controls (motosliders, lighting rings, etc.).
Till some truly generic (with MC protocol support) plug-in is written, the usability of particular controller depends on how close it imitate MC(U). Other approach is direct SONAR support from the hardware producer (or other developers).
 

I understand now. One big reason the MC caught on was because it wasn't up to Mackie to  provide support for different DAWs. Mackie relied on each DAW maker to write there own plugin for it. In the case of Sonar it does have a plugin for the MC. Its the MackieControl.dll in the shared surfaces directory. 
 
If a particular function is not on another surface its not because of the MC dll. Its due entirely to the maker not providing it. Yet, they still advertise it as being compatible(those that make competing CSs). But because each DAW developer is able to pick and choose what they will support on a Mackie Control it varies greatly from one DAW to the next how much is supported. The deepest support a DAW has is under Logic in Logic mode. However, the Mackie Control can do nearly all that the Logic Control can do under Logic. This has been a pet peeve of mine for as long as I have had my MC. Its a great CS I know from hands on on it the LC and a Studio Mix. I was at the introduction of the Huston too. So far no other CS has bettered the Mackie Control. 

is there any completed dll somewhere or we need to compile our own? 
 
Hope not...

I must say that dropping mcu (or control surface in general) support is quite something. I would even say, as far as I know, that it's the first time in the industry.  I know Cakewalk want to do things before the competition but this one I'm not sure... ok not funny.
 
It's strange M. craig says almost no one use a control surface. Maybe footprint, cost, I don't know, but it ease the workflow so much it has become essential to me.
 
I owned a VS-700 system (awesome but only 9 faders with no possible upgrade and dropped very early) a Nucleus (totally great with other DAWs) and now checking Harrison who are suppose to release one for Mixbus one day.... if it support basic mcu and is expandable, I think it will be a winner, at least for other daws than Sonar... well, let's hope it's not over.

Anderton
I'm always shocked how few people use control surfaces. When I ask at seminars how many people use control surfaces, only a few people raise their hands. Most seem to mix with a mouse, which IMHO makes it impossible to treat a mix like a performance.

I think this post explains it all: there's apparently no market for control surfaces, hence all good ones are legacy, new ones can only be developed by the B brand because they do it under Chinese conditions (not elorabating any further) ...
 
Same applies to software development: Cakewalk says it's up to HW manufactures, HM makers say opposite cause all need to make profits to remain in business, but apparently there are no profits to be made from control surfaces ... unless you take over the entire market at once, which is probably what big B is aiming at with the X-touch series ... which is not impossible if you think how their digital mixer series took off ... and hence there soon may only be one brand in the prosumer market ...
 
As for myself, I'm really happy I got into the VS-700 before it disappeared from the market. It still works great and it's a major reason why I'm happy with Sonar. I'm after what Craig calls a performance and don't want to chase a mouse around like when editing spreadsheets etc. Personally I don't understand why only a few people are using a control surface - maybe because there always were only 2 options: cheap+limited or integrated+expensive+(meanwhile) rare ... meanwhile touch screen have appeared (and disappeared again for many, probably again those that are after a performance) ... but let's leave that topic aside as it will make this thread go on forever ...
 
However, I dread the day when Cakewalk stops supporting VS-700 or introduces/updates important features while disregarding remote control via the control surface (as we had when X1 came out) ...
 
When that happens we can on rely on independent developers and their beta versions (thanks, azslow for trying all this! I follow your work but can't invest time at the moment for serious contributions) or sell cars and kidneys to go for one of the expensive solutions that exist for other DAWs ...

Dyonight
It's strange M. craig says almost no one use a control surface. Maybe footprint, cost, I don't know, but it ease the workflow so much it has become essential to me.

 
Well my evidence is anecdotal, not scientific, but I've given so many workshops/seminars and the answer is so consistent it really does seem control surfaces are not a priority for most users. I think there are several issues at play.

• Expense. They're hardware.
• General-purpose devices have a learning curve because you have to remember what assignable buttons and faders do, and dedicated devices have to sell in big numbers to justify their existence.
• More and more users didn't get started with a physical mixer, and don't know what they're missing.

That said, as long as I'm content with just the basics (faders, pan, mute, solo, arm record, etc.) then Mackie controllers work fine with SONAR. Last time I tried a Nucleus it worked fine except for bus control. Once I ventured into that area, I couldn't get back to the regular functions. However I have not tried the most recent template so maybe that works now...maybe not.
 
I wish I could give azslow3 more support in his venture. He seems very bright and dedicated, and offered his work to the forum. The problem is that the VS-700 is working for me so I'm not actively searching for a solution, and my time is extremely limited.
 
I do think the VS-700 will continue to work with SONAR for quite some time. I did "divorce" the audio section from the controller because I preferred the audio quality of the TASCAM US-4x4 and most of the time, don't need more than four simultaneous ins. But once I installed the console-only driver and followed the instructions on how to set the DIP switch on the back, it's been working fine for me.
 
Touch is interesting. It's not the same experience as faders, but I think it could be. Right now touch is trying to "force-fit" itself to the hardware paradigm, but I think new approaches with touch could be the answer.

Anderton
 
Touch is interesting. It's not the same experience as faders, but I think it could be. Right now touch is trying to "force-fit" itself to the hardware paradigm, but I think new approaches with touch could be the answer.

Sorry - I don't mean to hijack the thread but after reading this I had to share a thought regarding TOUCH in Platinum, largely because I agree with this sentiment, but am concerned about the likelihood of any significant improvement in this area. (To avoid some of the inevitable piling on and flaming, I love Platinum and am enjoying it a lot - pretty much moved to S_Plat exclusively (from X3 Producer)).
In my view however - there are almost NO improvements to Touch in Platinum. (the forthcoming touch MIDI keyboard is not likely something I am going to make a lot of use of, except potentially for auditioning sounds).
If I have a criticism of Cakewalk (have been an exclusive user and regular upgrader since Home Studio 9) it is their propensity to introduce new features and carry them through one (at most) iteration of upgrade then move on to something else (CAL, staff view, ACT, the step sequencer, Rapture, DPro - not to mention Kinetic and Project 5 are examples). I invested in a big Touch Screen monitor when X3 first came out and make modest use of it, but to not have even basic Win 8 touch features available in Console view - (Like a "right click" mouse option on faders??? - have to use the mouse) is a bit of a head scratcher. (these are things that I can easily do with Touch outside of SONAR, but not in it - even though it is supposedly touch centric). Cakewalk runs the very real risk of going from being perceived as a market leader in Touch technology (when X3 came out) - to being a follower (which they may already be). If they want to be in the Touch game - and promote themselves in this respect, they have to (in my view) become more aggressive in how they tackle this technology and roll out some real and significant innovation in this area.
This sounds a lot more negative than I intended it to sound - I have no interest in looking elsewhere and I love and will continue to support Cakewalk and SONAR -
Hope this doesn't devolve into something negative - it was really intended to just outline how I feel about the product and Cake's conservatism when it comes to rolling out their features - in particular - TOUCH.
(ok Flame on.)

Brando
This sounds a lot more negative than I intended it to sound - I have no interest in looking elsewhere and I love and will continue to support Cakewalk and SONAR -
Hope this doesn't devolve into something negative - it was really intended to just outline how I feel about the product and Cake's conservatism when it comes to rolling out their features - in particular - TOUCH.
(ok Flame on.)

Sorry, not flame-worthy
 
I'm going to speculate here...please note I have not asked Cakewalk about this and I could be 100% right or 100% wrong.
 
It seems like Windows 10 is going to be significantly different from Windows 8. Largely, the former mobile team is driving the train and while that scares some people (oh no! my desktop is going to turn into a tablet!!) IMHO it's harder to get mobile right. If they can do that, making the OS work on a desktop will be relatively simple by comparison.
 
If this is the case, Cakewalk might feel it's not worth putting the effort into a big update for Windows 8 when they would just have to do it all over again for Windows 10. But I don't know.
 
 

Anderton

Brando
This sounds a lot more negative than I intended it to sound - I have no interest in looking elsewhere and I love and will continue to support Cakewalk and SONAR -
Hope this doesn't devolve into something negative - it was really intended to just outline how I feel about the product and Cake's conservatism when it comes to rolling out their features - in particular - TOUCH.
(ok Flame on.)

Sorry, not flame-worthy
 
I'm going to speculate here...please note I have not asked Cakewalk about this and I could be 100% right or 100% wrong.
 
It seems like Windows 10 is going to be significantly different from Windows 8. Largely, the former mobile team is driving the train and while that scares some people (oh no! my desktop is going to turn into a tablet!!) IMHO it's harder to get mobile right. If they can do that, making the OS work on a desktop will be relatively simple by comparison.
 
If this is the case, Cakewalk might feel it's not worth putting the effort into a big update for Windows 8 when they would just have to do it all over again for Windows 10. But I don't know.
 
 

Hey Craig - thanks for the reply. You bring up a valid issue. By extension, another issue that might hurt SONAR development in this area is the difference in operating systems in general - for example what Windows 7 allows or has enabled as Touch features versus what Windows 8 does - unfortunately this may mean keeping the lowest common denominator of their user base.
Thanks - also - since I have your ear - I also want to echo my thanks to you for your participation on these forums, and for being such a valuable member of the SONAR and music communities.
Cheers