Sanderxpander
Having sat next to skilled EDM producers using FL Studio I have to agree with the OP that that toolset is WAY quicker and more efficient using "painting" style tools over copy/paste dialogs. Really. There is a thread of mine here requesting tips for a similar workflow in Sonar but you can't have it, really. With all due respect to the various tips and workarounds offered here, it seems to me the people who are "defending" Sonar in this respect probably don't have first hand experience with this workflow in FL.

I'm not sure anybody was "defending" Sonar.  We try to help people find ways to get things done.  That's not defending Sonar.  That's trying to help a brother or sister musician get what's in their head into their project.
 
 
 
 

Sanderxpander
Having sat next to skilled EDM producers using FL Studio I have to agree with the OP that that toolset is WAY quicker and more efficient using "painting" style tools over copy/paste dialogs. Really. There is a thread of mine here requesting tips for a similar workflow in Sonar but you can't have it, really. With all due respect to the various tips and workarounds offered here, it seems to me the people who are "defending" Sonar in this respect probably don't have first hand experience with this workflow in FL.

You can use more than one DAW. If Sonar gives you better mixing capabilities than FL, then rewire FL into Sonar and you get the best of both. Don't forget to add a feature request for what you perceive as missing functionality in Sonar though. Who knows, someday you might be surprised by what comes in an update.
 
Regards,
Dan

I didn't in turn mean that to be an attack. But I saw a few comments in the spirit of "Sonar is fine for EDM if you know how to use it". Obviously in response to the OP's complaints. I just happen to know what he means and FL is actually superior in this regard. For months I have been on the brink of buying it because of its elegance in pattern building.

I agree you can have more than one DAW. I also have Ableton, Maschine, Reaper, Sibelius and Notion (ok technically not all of them really DAWs). For most things I prefer Sonar, for many reasons. Pattern building is not amongst them :)

I've been kicking around the idea of picking up a copy of FL.  I wonder how well it rewires as mentioned above.
 
 

Sanderxpander
I didn't in turn mean that to be an attack. But I saw a few comments in the spirit of "Sonar is fine for EDM if you know how to use it".

Well...I'm not sure everyone involved in this discussion knows the following. Although you don't have as many options as when copying (e.g., you can't choose to copy into an existing pattern) I think the following does exactly what the OP wants, with the only difference being that you need to create your pattern in the Step Sequencer (which has its own advantages anyway) and not the PRV:
 
1. Create your pattern in the step sequencer (this creates a clip in the track view).
2. In track view, click-drag the clip edge to roll the clip out for as many iterations as you want (note that the Step Sequencer will still be available in the dock). You don't have to convert to a clip, convert to a groove clip, or anything. Just roll the sucker out.
3. Any edit you now make in the step sequencer will be reflected automatically in all the iterations you rolled out, just as if all the iterations were linked. You don't have to roll the iterations back in or change anything, just access the step sequencer and make your edit.
 
Even better...suppose you're not a fan of cookie-cutter repetition, so you want to make changes in some parts of the sequence, but not others. You can then bounce what you have to itself, create a clip, and edit it in the PRV, or convert the longer clip into a longer step sequencer pattern. 
 
I get the sense that the step sequencer's humanizing and editing capabilities are underappreciated because it's assumed SONAR's step sequencer works like most other step sequencers. However once you dig into what happens when you expand a row, it's pretty amazing.
 
But there's another point worth mentioning. Not all EDM is MIDI-based; my heritage is the MPC sample-based mentality that existed long before virtual instruments. Although there are programs that may have "better MIDI workflow for EDM" than SONAR, where many (most?) of them fall down is the audio workflow for EDM. For that type of work, I greatly prefer SONAR, and MIDI techniques like the one above can be found with a little digging.
 
What I find confusing about comments like "this or that program is great for EDM" is that in my experience, the programs that are referenced are good for a specific EDM workflow around which the program is optimized. That's fine and makes a lot of sense from a design standpoint (which is why I use Live for live performance), but it can preclude a more general-purpose approach that allows going beyond the boundaries of the program's design philosophy. For many people that may not be necessary, but for others, it is. For example it was really interesting to see how Ilan Bluestone creates his EDM projects in SONAR when he gave a workshop with Jimmy Landry at the 2015 GearFest. SONAR was able to accommodate the unique workflow he uses; I'm not sure what other program could. Same situation with me...

I want to add one more thing about all DAWs, and please, no one should be offended by this. The title - "Pattern Painting Flawed" - epitomizes many peoples' problems with whatever DAW they use: they approach a feature with an expectation of what it will do, and when that expectation isn't met, they conclude there's a problem or that it's flawed.
 
People often ask how I manage to keep coming up with the various applications for "Friday's Tip of the Week." It's because I remove expectations when approaching a feature; the feature is what it is, and needs to be accepted and especially, understood for what it actually is. That's why when I see a feature called "Loop Construction View" I see a way to create a perfect emulation of tape-based varispeed, or an analog step sequencer, or a way to mutate tambourine parts into electro-worthy percussion loops. That doesn't make me fabulous or anything; it just makes me someone who accepts something as it is, probes what it does, and can then proceed to make the most out of what it actually is.  
 
It's not a bad idea to take this approach with people, either, but that's a whole other topic 

Agreed, Craig, and I'm with Sonar for a reason.

The step sequencer approach you mention is closest to FL, but not quite. In FL you can easily paint just a kick, just a snare or just a hihat, all visible from the same step sequencer even though each will be on its own track. If you could find a way to do this in Sonar you'd make my day.

AFAIK, FL is a pattern based sequencer, Sonar is not. I think that misunderstanding this is where all that "flawed workflow" nonsense comes from. It is like thinking that a nailgun is a flawed hammer while trying to drive nails with the handle...or that a hammer is a flawed nailgun.

JoseC.
AFAIK, FL is a pattern based sequencer, Sonar is not. I think that misunderstanding this is where all that "flawed workflow" nonsense comes from. It is like thinking that a nailgun is a flawed hammer while trying to drive nails with the handle...or that a hammer is a flawed nailgun.

I like that.  I can think of ways to use that such as, "... well, that's a perfect example of a flawed hammer problem."
 
Will you require attribution for each use? 

BobF

I like that.  I can think of ways to use that such as, "... well, that's a perfect example of a flawed hammer problem."
 
Will you require attribution for each use? 

No, be my guest :)