Anyone have a Novation SL Mk 2 working with ACT and Midilearn

AFAIC, the Automap utility relies on HUI protocol, which is not supported in Sonar OOTB. Try AZ Controller http://forum.cakewalk.com/Sonar-Resources-and-Utilities-m3392713.aspx
It worked for me. Although I use M-Audio Code keyboard, the basic problem with HUI protocol support in Sonar is the same.

Siluroo
Maybe I need to study more about the different protocols, but seriously, its just a midi controller, I should not need to be this difficult to get a midi controller to work with a bit of software.  This is 2016 with windows 10 and plug and play, not 1986 with PC-DOS 3.x and windows 1.0 when you had to configure everything from tables in several instruction manuals.

MIDI is still the same since 1986 Piano was not significantly changed in mechanics since 100 years and still no one can play it professionally in 15 minutes without spending years to learn how to play it.
 
Sonar "MIDI Learn" works with "simple" controls only (not endless). "ACT MIDI" / "Generic Surface" / (my) "AZ Controller" are the way to use any advanced controls. Note that you still need to read the manual (chapters 20 and 40 in the Sonar reference guide for the first two, my manual for the last) to get some controller do what you want. Computers are still not good in reading your mind...

Siluroo
I am not trying to do anything that I would call advanced, but to me advanced is getting into macro or programmable function territory.

Let me explain the situation is several sentences...
 
Each parameter (in Sonar, VST) has a value from 0.0 to 1.0. F.e. centered pan is 0.5 (strictly 1/2).
"Normal" MIDI message has values from 0 to 127, some from 0 to 16535. That is what simple controls, like faders and knobs are sending. So, assuming 0 is 0.0 and 127 (16535) is 1.0, the logic is strait forward. That what is working for "MIDI Learn" in VST and "Remote control..." in Sonar.
 
Well... there is already a problem. Like there is no "perfect tune" in modern notes (12 devisions of octave is a "compromise"), there is no perfect 1/2 from 127. 64 is "a bit less", 65 is "a bit more". That is why without future "tricks" it is impossible to set perfect center using strait approach (most software take that into account, some not).
 
With endless encoders, the meaning of "turning" is just +1 or -1 (sometimes +2,+3,etc. to specify the speed). But which interpretation of "+1" should be used? For some situations 1/128 is too coarse (f.e. EQ Frequency), for some 1/16535 is too fine (you will need to turn the encoders many full rounds to change volume by 1dB). And so we slowly move toward some "macro or scripting" territory.
 
But the number of parameter in modern DAW, including all all parameters from all VSTs fast explode toward 10000 and more even in a small project. And you have 20-50 hardware controls only on surface. And so, without scripting, even with "modifier keys" it is impossible to cover all of them.
 
Which scripting is "perfect"? There are several "standard" proposals how limited number of hardware controls should operate endless number of DAW parameters. Most famous is Mackie Control. But there are other, like AutoMap, NKS, etc. For different purpose, with different approaches. All of them have something common, all of them are not "perfect" for each particular user.
 
And so different DAW have different solutions to allow end users decide what is the best for them. With general groups:
* simple - MIDI Learn particular hardware parameter for particular software parameter, no scripting but the number of controlled parameters and they way they are controlled are fixed
* "standard" - complicated scripted but fixed mapping, made by "wise" developers for particular devices (in case of Sonar, specialized plug-ins)
* "advanced" - generic mapping, with some freedom in parameters and hardware definitions, but still more or less fixed "scripting" logic ("ACT MIDI", "Generic Surface")
* "expert" - arbitrary user defined logic (Cakewalk Control Surface SDK for C++, AZ Controller with own philosophy and IDE)
 
What I want to say is that you can get simple functionality without big effort, but when you want more you need at least something from "macro or scripting" world.
 

Novation has made AutoMap for that. As long as you use it, you are not forced to deal with MIDI and scripting. That software has some disadvantages. In your comparison with Fort, let say your car takes 5x longer route than required or refuse to build the route with the message "selected destination can not be reached" (happens with my navigation). So that was your decision to turn "the computer" off.
 
Note that once everything is configured right (either AutoMap or ACT way), you can assign a knob to parameter rather quick.
 

Siluroo
Basically getting a value from an encoder of some sort is a hugely easier task than getting accurate location data mapped.  For with an encoder you have a known good value, with maps you start with an approximated value from a an already distorted and inaccurate model.

Getting the value from an encoder is not a problem. The question is what you want to do with this value. That can be use case and user specific. Not only "fine" and "coarse" setting, but also behavior in case of several discrete settings (f.e. EQ type, I prefer one tick switch the type while other prefer some "range" does not change it). But real challenge is the definition which parameter one encoder controls under different conditions. 
 

You would be amazed at then number of land ownership disputes that have been triggered by more accurate mapping technology in last 20 years.

My wife has studied geology, in particular processing of corresponding maps. Also my uni mates was processing geographic maps collected over time (starting from hand drawn some centuries ago till satellite photos). So I am a bit aware that is not an easy job
 
 

Siluroo
So why do we not have midi controllers templates loading like a VST or FX within DAW's for configuration if its easy to get a value from an encoder, irrespective of brand?
Why cant I go pull up a picture of my controller and click on each knob with my mouse to configure its range or increment type if necessary, then go click on the corresponding control in my DAW to link it, whether that be sonar, cubase, or any other brand? why cant i be using half of my midi controller in one DAW, and the other half in another if I so desired for whatever weird reason?
And if I want a control to do different things depending on the current focus window, then have a check box to lock it o focused window, and a mode switch for switching focus?
With system like that, then I could link two controls to compound values or change incremental steps on one encoder from another on the fly if I wished?

Good questions! I have asked the same myself a while ago...
 

So I really do not understand why I need to be looking at configuration tables, instead of a pretty GUI template, supported by hardware plug n play.  At least not on Windows 10.x

To understand that, you will have to read the user manual for my AZ Controller (and other posts from my site).
 
I have developed a plug-in which can do everything you have mentioned. For all devices (MIDI, OSC, Joystick). The problem is a "pretty GUI template". Once (if) I understand how to make my IDE "pretty GUI" without loosing the functionality freedom, I probably will write it
 
At the moment, I can create ready to go preset for almost any device (see "Presets" section on my site for what is already there). But there are 2 problems:
a) I do not have these devices
b) there is no documentation for most devices
and so I do this in cooperation with users which have these devices. See http://www.azslow.com/index.php/topic,322.0.html as an example how that works. Slow... time consuming... I am open for any ideas how to improve that scenario.