I started writing this as a reply to another thread, but thought maybe it suited it's own.
 
I think all aspects of the Sonar make Sonar what it is. Not just the midi and audio engine. All the editing views, all the plug ins.  Many people don't use step sequencers, does that mean it shouldn't be enhanced and evolve a little. The same for Matrix View not really used, but it's part of the whole bundle, and this stands for the staff view, lyrics view. I don't think there have been suggestions for the Event Editor improvements, but if there were and it was obvious that it would improve it too, then go for it.
 
The idea of a 'core' seems very subjective, and probably changes depending on the time spent with Twelve Tone Systems....er Cakewalk. What is the core?
 
Midi record and editing
Audio record and editing
Audio mixing.
 
If that's it, then anytime someone suggest improving a ProChannel, such as adding MS and gain control to the Quad EQ. Well is that core as part of the mixing option? You can buy third party of you want better. It's not really 'core' It's an add on.
 
At some point, actually probably now, the Piano Roll View is pretty much complete, The option for recording audio seem there too. The console view, what's to add, more routing. We can't say better metering. You can buy that, it's an add on, it's not core.
 
Calling for just 'core' improvements, tweaks, bug fixes and performance enhancements, and to not enhance anything disappoints me. That's not what I'm hoping lifetime membership get me. As soon as you call for just these 'core' progressions, and any other area, yet object to somebody else wanting other enhancements outside your 'just core + plus your thing' then that's either selfish, or you have a different opinion on what you call 'core'.
 
Among the reasons I stuck with Sonar is because it's a rounded package and we saw new innovations before other DAWs, the  options to compose with a broad range of tools for both midi and Audio. To be continue to be innovative I think more than just tracking and mixing need to evolve and be enhanced. It reminds me of the quote;
 
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
etc...
 
If we start cherry picking what we want improved, whilst arguing against enhancements for aspects that don't fit our musical agenda, what do we want Sonar to become. I really don't want it to be a tracking and a mixing machine, that would take the heart and soul out of it. I don't want to be thinking about third part options for things that Sonar has, but but are lacking in other option. I want people to come and use Sonar because it's at least on par with that third part option, but Sonar is more rounded and has more to offer in other options too. I think this will help sonar draw in more users, and in turn help the program grow.
 
Now I expect we will see a drop in developing the existing product as the Mac version gets off its feet. But to draw in new Mac users, then being seen as a complete and rounded Sequencer and DAW is only going to help grow into that market too. So when I see Feature Requests argues against, because it not core, or even to just focus on their interpretation of core for this moment in time, it seems both myopic and  short sighted. 
 
For me, everything that is made by Cakewalk that comes with your sonar version is core. It all needs some loving and attention along the way, especially as part of this membership model. 

There are too many pieces-parts for them all to get love in a reasonable time-frame, IMO.  That's what I see as the center of discussions about what needs to be fixed/enhanced/added.

How do we determine a reasonable time frame? Do we start from scratch with post X series. As this is the one Sonar to bring them all and in the darkness bind them. If we do that, then what we are 2 and half years in. How many years into this version should things go undeveloped, when they are part of sonar and advertised as key aspects for the program. Many things don't need full overhauls, just tweaks and attention along the way.

Each of us will have to assess progress based on our own needs/expectations and how we use SONAR.

But that's more the point I'm making. Everyone's assessment of core seems to be based of there subjective criteria, But no one really wants just core, they want 'core+plus there thing'. It then becomes hypercritical to argue against someone else's reuest on the grounds it's not in their personal definition of core.
 
Since it's release, we've had 2 non core functions added, that many people don't use, (in the same way as Matric, step and staff) in drum replacer and and vocal sync, as well as the external addition of Theme Editor. I'm not objected to those being included, but I would certainly hope when additions are made they are left for half a decade or more when obvious enhancements and tweaks could be made.
 
We don't have a Sonar road map or or manifesto, we have on an act of faith become lifetime members. We have blindly signed up, it seems to help get the Mac version off the ground, but we can have no expectations or clarity on what we are getting.
 
I don't know how coding works, but I'm hoping a spin off of the mac version as the migrate the code, is that lots of area are being reviewed, and will see development as a by product of the mac work.
 
 

I think something is "in the core" when you can not do that my other means or that involves too hard to use workarounds. As easy as that. Such definition is possible when something is "modular", and Sonar is. I mean every feature which is possible to do using VST/VSTi or control surfaces plug-ins is strictly speaking not in the core, as long as Sonar side part is working fine.
 
There are several "modules" in between "inside"/"not inside" definition. F.e. ProChannel modules are Sonar specific, support for Console 1 will be Sonar specific, etc. And I agree that such "modules" should be considered as a core, at least till most EQs on the market are also delivered with ProChannel format...
 
The problem that what we definitively see in "the core" is far from perfect, I mean not only bugs but also limiting functionality. No-one can browse the Internet and find "another MIDI engine with VST MIDI support inside FX bin for Sonar" the same way we can find some EQ. So that is "show stopper" vs "nice feature", and many users naturally think the first is more important.
 
I do not claim requests about EQ/sampler/whatever improvements should be ignored, but I do not think they are equal by importance to the MIDI routing / Track view / clip editing / etc. requests.

Kamikaze
Since it's release, we've had 2 non core functions added, that many people don't use, (in the same way as Matric, step and staff) in drum replacer and and vocal sync, as well as the external addition of Theme Editor. I'm not objected to those being included, but I would certainly hope when additions are made they are left for half a decade or more when obvious enhancements and tweaks could be made.

I forgot to add that plug-ins/core developments are probably done by different people (as you can see from WHO is replaying in this forum and names in About for some peaces).

why don't cakewalk just state what is - and isn't - core? (or is that too obvious?)

My take on lifetime updates/core features is that I wouldn't care if every new function introduced from here on in was an optional purchased extra (though given what has happened thus far this seems unlikely!). There is enormous value in knowing that Sonar as it stands (and the projects that I create using it) are 'future proofed' in the sense that bugs will continue to be addressed and the core program updated to work with whatever version of windows becomes current for as long as it survives - without any further cost. Anything beyond is a bonus.

What's your take on the core, Tenfoot. How do you interpret it.