Noel Borthwick [Cakewalk]
WTH even I didn't know this was announced! Someone decided to turn up the heat on me lol :) 
The trickiest part of this is not so much the actual routing. As you know we already can route and mix streams from anywhere via sidechains - thats how sidechaining works. The engine has been designed to handle pretty much any arbitrary routing so thats the least of the problem. The hardest part is doing the infrastructure for virtual ports, and recording virtual ports itself which is very complex. If it turns out the way were planning, this will be a really powerful and elegant feature.
 

That sounds even betterer or better even . . . as long as it's not Beta

So next time you want to know what's going on Noel, just ask, we'll let you know

OMG.  To be able to route a soft synth to an audio track, and record all the changes I make to the soft synth, including program changes, is something I could use so bad!  As many know, you can already do this, but it involves putting a midi note XXX measures down the track, then doing that what you hear bounce to track thingy.  You just play and stop the rendering process when you are done...you get a message saying the rending was stopped before it was finished (because that midi note is way down there! so you have time to record what you wanted), do you want to keep it anyway, and you say yes, and you get a wave file on a new track with what you recorded.
 
So maybe recording a virtual port can have something to do with the rendering function...I always thought a window that contained all the things I did to record would have been enough.  But it's still I guess inferior to doing it right.
 
In Development.  WOW!  I like it!

Yeah, the few remaining advantages Pro Tools has over Sonar are quickly becoming few and far between. :)  And when you look at the big picture - like bundled instruments/plugins and the payment structure, a strong argument could be made that Sonar has already surpassed them.  Which is kinda why Sonar gets used all the time and I never touch Pro Tools.  It came with my Eleven Rack so luckily I don't see it as a waste of money. :)

I just hope that output choice list will be modified too. Now in big projects this list of audio interface outputs, buses, side-chain plug-ins is already too long, and it takes time to scroll it down. If all audio tracks will be added there, it will be endless.

I think that is logical consequence after lengthy previous discussion about "random" soft synths. I have digged VST API and the internet in general just to find that NO ONE is really thinking about sound reproducibility coming from random components. So recording live is the only feasible option for all "unpredictable" software sound generators/modifiers.

Adq
I just hope that output choice list will be modified too.

It's the Input list that will be affected by this feature. Physical interface driver inputs are already grouped into a branch of the drop-down list. If each soft synth gets its own branch, the list should be pretty manageable. If not, having even a few multi-out synths in the project would make for an immense list. I trust the Bakers will address this in a reasonable way.
 
 

brundlefly

Adq
I just hope that output choice list will be modified too.

It's the Input list that will be affected by this feature. Physical interface driver inputs are already grouped into a branch of the drop-down list. If each soft synth gets its own branch, the list should be pretty manageable. If not, having even a few multi-out synths in the project would make for an immense list. I trust the Bakers will address this in a reasonable way.
 

No you won't see endless track lists. We have something much cooler planned :)

Noel Borthwick [Cakewalk
No you won't see endless track lists. We have something much cooler planned :)

Drug and drop binding??? :-)
But anyway I hope that existing functionality will not suffer.
My hopes are so contradictory...

Noel Borthwick [Cakewalk]

brundlefly

Adq
I just hope that output choice list will be modified too.

It's the Input list that will be affected by this feature. Physical interface driver inputs are already grouped into a branch of the drop-down list. If each soft synth gets its own branch, the list should be pretty manageable. If not, having even a few multi-out synths in the project would make for an immense list. I trust the Bakers will address this in a reasonable way.
 

No you won't see endless track lists. We have something much cooler planned :)

Now all ya'll should pay attention to this post. I think it says something about the new age of Sonar and how, as I've been saying with cautious optimism since X3, that we could be very well about to experience a massive shift from "underdogs" to "industry standard".
 
This lack of function has indeed been one of the things that other platforms had over Sonar. There was no real disputing that. However now that it is being implemented in Sonar what, ten?, twenty?, years after the others who are firmly planted in that (IMO lame arse, confusing, boring as balls) type of setup can we not expect a hyper modernized and much more USEFUL implementation of that old standard based on the years of requests and suggestions about it?
 
tl;dr
 
The old guys did it 20 years ago and it was "meh" but useful for specific things. 20 years of screaming and plotting and scheming might just = BOOM!!! Super awesome wicked time while the competitors are forced to deal with their 20 year old code deeply ingrained in their programs.
 
All your base are belong to us.
 
well that wasn't really a tl;dr but FU... I do wut I want...
 
/optimistic
//don't prove me wrong
///you have not so far