Keith Albright [Cakewalk]

Brian Walton
For the full screen mode, I think we need an updated option for win 10 users that run extended desktop mode and place the multi dock on the 2nd monitor. The track view extends to both monitors and the multi dock sits on top of it on the second monitor. This means scrolling of the trackview goes underneath the multi dock. It also means scrolling up and down of the 1st monitor view is handled at the far right of the 2nd monitor.

This is poor design for those that use extended displays and place the multidock on the second monitor. I think a second full screen option is needed to accommodate this very common setup.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding how you are configuring the windows.  Please clarify.
To what display mode are you referring to?  Do you mean this setting or something else?
 

 
For me, I can drag the multidock to the 2nd monitor and click full screen on the main SONAR UI with the result that it fills the 1st monitor but leaves the multidock as is.
 

My monitors aren't the same resolution so that's why the first one looks letterboxed by comparison.
Thanks.

Yes, my settings are exactly the same in the windows configuration (though my monitors are exactly the same resolution - make and model).  
 
On my Win10 64 bit computer the track view and browser extend all the way across both monitors the second I hit Full Screen, even though I have the Track view docked on the first monitor and the Multi-doc on the 2nd monitor.  The Multidock then sits over the Track view in the 2nd monitor.  The horizontal scroll is then hidden on the 2nd monitor (but required to keep scrolling), and it places the vertical scroll to the far right of the 2nd monitor.   
 
It works as yours does on my Win7 computer (that I don't really use).  
 
When I'm back at my Home Studio computer, I could send a screen shoot if that is helpful.  

Brian Walton

Keith Albright [Cakewalk]

Brian Walton
For the full screen mode, I think we need an updated option for win 10 users that run extended desktop mode and place the multi dock on the 2nd monitor. The track view extends to both monitors and the multi dock sits on top of it on the second monitor. This means scrolling of the trackview goes underneath the multi dock. It also means scrolling up and down of the 1st monitor view is handled at the far right of the 2nd monitor.

This is poor design for those that use extended displays and place the multidock on the second monitor. I think a second full screen option is needed to accommodate this very common setup.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding how you are configuring the windows.  Please clarify.
To what display mode are you referring to?  Do you mean this setting or something else?
 

 
For me, I can drag the multidock to the 2nd monitor and click full screen on the main SONAR UI with the result that it fills the 1st monitor but leaves the multidock as is.
 

My monitors aren't the same resolution so that's why the first one looks letterboxed by comparison.
Thanks.

Yes, my settings are exactly the same in the windows configuration (though my monitors are exactly the same resolution - make and model).  
 
On my Win10 64 bit computer the track view and browser extend all the way across both monitors the second I hit Full Screen, even though I have the Track view docked on the first monitor and the Multi-doc on the 2nd monitor.  The Multidock then sits over the Track view in the 2nd monitor.  The horizontal scroll is then hidden on the 2nd monitor (but required to keep scrolling), and it places the vertical scroll to the far right of the 2nd monitor.   
 
It works as yours does on my Win7 computer (that I don't really use).  
 
When I'm back at my Home Studio computer, I could send a screen shoot if that is helpful.  

Ok, thanks for clarifying.  The thing to note is the position of the main app window before you click full screen.
Presently if any pixel extends into the other display, then clicking full screen will fill both displays.  If however, the track view is only contained on one monitor it will fill one monitor. 
 
I set my display resolutions to match and now I can get it to fill one or both depending on whether or not the track view (really the main frame) is extending into the other display before clicking the full screen button.
 
Keith

Keith Albright [Cakewalk]

Brian Walton

Keith Albright [Cakewalk]

Brian Walton
For the full screen mode, I think we need an updated option for win 10 users that run extended desktop mode and place the multi dock on the 2nd monitor. The track view extends to both monitors and the multi dock sits on top of it on the second monitor. This means scrolling of the trackview goes underneath the multi dock. It also means scrolling up and down of the 1st monitor view is handled at the far right of the 2nd monitor.

This is poor design for those that use extended displays and place the multidock on the second monitor. I think a second full screen option is needed to accommodate this very common setup.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding how you are configuring the windows.  Please clarify.
To what display mode are you referring to?  Do you mean this setting or something else?
 

 
For me, I can drag the multidock to the 2nd monitor and click full screen on the main SONAR UI with the result that it fills the 1st monitor but leaves the multidock as is.
 

My monitors aren't the same resolution so that's why the first one looks letterboxed by comparison.
Thanks.

Yes, my settings are exactly the same in the windows configuration (though my monitors are exactly the same resolution - make and model).  
 
On my Win10 64 bit computer the track view and browser extend all the way across both monitors the second I hit Full Screen, even though I have the Track view docked on the first monitor and the Multi-doc on the 2nd monitor.  The Multidock then sits over the Track view in the 2nd monitor.  The horizontal scroll is then hidden on the 2nd monitor (but required to keep scrolling), and it places the vertical scroll to the far right of the 2nd monitor.   
 
It works as yours does on my Win7 computer (that I don't really use).  
 
When I'm back at my Home Studio computer, I could send a screen shoot if that is helpful.  

Ok, thanks for clarifying.  The thing to note is the position of the main app window before you click full screen.
Presently if any pixel extends into the other display, then clicking full screen will fill both displays.  If however, the track view is only contained on one monitor it will fill one monitor. 
 
I set my display resolutions to match and now I can get it to fill one or both depending on whether or not the track view (really the main frame) is extending into the other display before clicking the full screen button.
 
Keith

I just tried it again today and the issue seems to be gone.  
 
Here is a picture of what it WAS doing.  I tried to make sure it was "snapped" to the main screen dozens of times yesterday, perhaps it was just a temporary glitch.  
 
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9LFoWIHk0ZZSm1acWxndmhjQlE/view?usp=sharing
 
 

Thanks for limiting the cpu load balancing (and ultimately cpu efficiency)
to the platinum version. This update completely eliminates any reason
to use a lesser version.
 
I've been looking for a reason to cancel my subscription
and now I have it. 
 
-Cheers

Well at least I wasn't hallucinating about the melodyne announcement: http://www.cakewalk.com/Support/Knowledge-Base/2016000048/SONAR-2016-09-Update-Fixes-and-Enhancements#MelodyneEssential41
 

pekbro
Thanks for limiting the cpu load balancing (and ultimately cpu efficiency)
to the platinum version. This update completely eliminates any reason
to use a lesser version.
 
I've been looking for a reason to cancel my subscription
and now I have it. 

 
Load balancing was a complex, innovative, and difficult procedure to implement and is available in no other DAW. Your logic strikes me as similar to "A Lexus costs more, and has more features, than a Toyota. Therefore I'm not going to buy a Toyota, because I'm entitled to a Lexus for the same price as a Toyota."
 
Seriously, the world of Digital Audio Workstations has somehow managed to survive for over a quarter-century without load balancing. I suspect those hardy souls who use non-Cakewalk software, or lesser versions than Platinum, will somehow still be able to make music.

Keith Albright [Cakewalk]

Brian Walton
For the full screen mode, I think we need an updated option for win 10 users that run extended desktop mode and place the multi dock on the 2nd monitor. The track view extends to both monitors and the multi dock sits on top of it on the second monitor. This means scrolling of the trackview goes underneath the multi dock. It also means scrolling up and down of the 1st monitor view is handled at the far right of the 2nd monitor.

This is poor design for those that use extended displays and place the multidock on the second monitor. I think a second full screen option is needed to accommodate this very common setup.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding how you are configuring the windows.  Please clarify.
To what display mode are you referring to?  Do you mean this setting or something else?
 

 
For me, I can drag the multidock to the 2nd monitor and click full screen on the main SONAR UI with the result that it fills the 1st monitor but leaves the multidock as is.
 

My monitors aren't the same resolution so that's why the first one looks letterboxed by comparison.
Thanks.

 
Is there anyway to have two control bars (one for each display?)

Anderton

pekbro
Thanks for limiting the cpu load balancing (and ultimately cpu efficiency)
to the platinum version. This update completely eliminates any reason
to use a lesser version.
 
I've been looking for a reason to cancel my subscription
and now I have it. 

 
Load balancing was a complex, innovative, and difficult procedure to implement and is available in no other DAW. Your logic strikes me as similar to "A Lexus costs more, and has more features, than a Toyota. Therefore I'm not going to buy a Toyota, because I'm entitled to a Lexus for the same price as a Toyota."
 
Seriously, the world of Digital Audio Workstations has somehow managed to survive for over a quarter-century without load balancing. I suspect those hardy souls who use non-Cakewalk software, or lesser versions than Platinum, will somehow still be able to make music.

You're right, I wouldn't have a problem with it, if performance had stayed the same for the lesser versions
and you just added it for the premium. Unfortunately this is hardly the case. Building it in, then disabling
it cannot be the best solution available to you.
 
btw: the platinum version simply offers no value for me as I own full versions of
pretty much everything you have in there (3rd party wise) also arguably better and more
costly products. Sorry, the cool fly-out analyzer and theme authoring just doesn't cut it for me.
 
*edited for rudeness, I am not here to fight. Just express my displeasure
  with the decision of a company that I've done business with for years.
  For someone like me, the upgrade is just asking too much. Make a true
  professional version with no 3rd party content and equal proprietary
  technology, even bump up the price appropriately and I will buy it without
  hesitation. As it stands, this decision is simply a very poor and insulting one IMO.
  What makes you think professionals don't need cpu performance? I find it laughable...
  Additionally, let me tell you, the number of professionals who need you to decide what virtual
  instruments or effects they should be paying for is precisely 0...
 
 
 
 
 
-Cheers

pekbro

Anderton

pekbro
Thanks for limiting the cpu load balancing (and ultimately cpu efficiency)
to the platinum version. This update completely eliminates any reason
to use a lesser version.
 
I've been looking for a reason to cancel my subscription
and now I have it. 

 
Load balancing was a complex, innovative, and difficult procedure to implement and is available in no other DAW. Your logic strikes me as similar to "A Lexus costs more, and has more features, than a Toyota. Therefore I'm not going to buy a Toyota, because I'm entitled to a Lexus for the same price as a Toyota."
 
Seriously, the world of Digital Audio Workstations has somehow managed to survive for over a quarter-century without load balancing. I suspect those hardy souls who use non-Cakewalk software, or lesser versions than Platinum, will somehow still be able to make music.

You're right, I wouldn't have a problem with it, if performance had stayed the same for the lesser versions
and you just added it for the premium. Unfortunately this is hardly the case. Building it in, then disabling
it cannot be the best solution available to you.
 
btw: the platinum version simply offers no value for me as I own full versions of
pretty much everything you have in there (3rd party wise) also arguably better and more
costly products. Sorry, the cool fly-out analyzer and theme authoring just doesn't cut it for me.
 
*edited for rudeness, I am not here to fight. Just express my displeasure
  with the decision of a company that I've done business with for years.
  For someone like me, the upgrade is just asking too much. Make a true
  professional version with no 3rd party content and equal proprietary
  technology, even bump up the price appropriately and I will buy it without
  hesitation. As it stands, this decision is simply a very poor and insulting one IMO.
  What makes you think professionals don't need cpu performance? I find it laughable...
  Additionally, let me tell you, the number of professionals who need you to decide what virtual
  instruments or effects they should be paying for is precisely 0...
 
 
 
 
 
-Cheers

You, my friend, are a rarity. Lifetime updates to Platinum is what a true "professional" should be using.
 
Regards,
Dan

The decision has to do with scale and price point. Load balancing is a feature not an optimization.
All versions share the same engine code so professional and artist have exactly the same optimizations to the engine.
Load balancing however was done specifically for users who are working on large scale projects and our metrics show that most of these fall into the Platinum user base. It is also a support issue since the feature isn't a one size fits all thing - at least today.
That said in the future we may offer certain features ala carte so one could stay on Professional or Artist and still purchase sets of features that are included in higher SKU's.