Yeah, we go around in circles every time this topic comes up, but the short answer is (a) there are some significant cases where being able to trigger 2 or more synths from just 1 MIDI track would be useful, and (b) Sonar does not support that. FL Studio does, and I seem to remember REAPER does.

I don't understand why you couldn't just use linked clips and hide the lot of them. But you've probably made that argument a thousand times already.

Kylotan
Yeah, we go around in circles every time this topic comes up, but the short answer is (a) there are some significant cases where being able to trigger 2 or more synths from just 1 MIDI track would be useful, and (b) Sonar does not support that. FL Studio does, and I seem to remember REAPER does.

And yet the world keeps spinning. Odd that.

You could also use a micro-host that can be loaded as a VSTi (Bidule? Chainer? Blue Cat do one too?) and put multiple VSTi's in that.

definition vs methodology. the OP asked "But can you play and trigger both Lounge Lizard and Dimension Pro", the answer is yes you can if you interpret 'play and trigger' to mean use a midi input device. Only the OP can clarify the meaning of the question. If I stepped on any toes I apologize as I did not intend to interfere with any requested development to sonar's future.  

Sure. But I think the issue of having to manage both of those synths and MIDI channels separately from that point forward is a significant barrier to a good workflow. Needing to remember to arm both channels and/or copy linked clips is a hassle. Then if you want to drag them around, you have to select both.
 
Probably the best workflow Sonar offers for this is to put the synths you want to layer within a track folder, so that you can click just 1 button to arm all the tracks or to enable input echo, and to group the clips as soon as they are recorded so that future drag/drop/slip-edit functions operate across all copies of the clip. And if you want any effects to act on the layered sound you'll have to route them all to a common bus and apply the FX there (though this may no longer be the case after the "Track to Track Routing" feature gets delivered).
 
(Maybe there's a way to mimic some of that via Quick Groups but if I'm being honest I never really got that feature working, and I don't know if it even still exists.)

KPerry
You could also use a micro-host that can be loaded as a VSTi (Bidule? Chainer? Blue Cat do one too?) and put multiple VSTi's in that.

yes i have used bluecat patchwork's synth option specifically for this. great plugin...

If Cakewalk can do audio track to track routing, this midi routing improvement is much easier and absolutely have to be done.

Kylotan
Sure. But I think the issue of having to manage both of those synths and MIDI channels separately from that point forward is a significant barrier to a good workflow. Needing to remember to arm both channels and/or copy linked clips is a hassle. Then if you want to drag them around, you have to select both.
 
Probably the best workflow Sonar offers for this is to put the synths you want to layer within a track folder, so that you can click just 1 button to arm all the tracks or to enable input echo, and to group the clips as soon as they are recorded so that future drag/drop/slip-edit functions operate across all copies of the clip. And if you want any effects to act on the layered sound you'll have to route them all to a common bus and apply the FX there (though this may no longer be the case after the "Track to Track Routing" feature gets delivered).
 
(Maybe there's a way to mimic some of that via Quick Groups but if I'm being honest I never really got that feature working, and I don't know if it even still exists.)

You can group the clips automatically (look in preferences) and yeah arming is easiest if in a folder. Once you set it up the right way, I can't off the top of my head think of any situation why you would have to deal with more than one midi track at all. And yeah obviously you'll need to bus the synths if you want to apply fx to all of them, but that only makes sense. You would have to have some way to separate fx on a single synth (e.g. piano with a chorused rhodes layer) and on a group (a compressor on the aforementioned layer) anyway, the current way makes perfect sense. It seems more an issue of wanting things to work differently than the actual result being impossible or even impractical.
 
But whatever makes the software more flexible is fine by me.

Put it this way - if I want to route 1 audio recording through several different buses and then regroup it at the end, I can. But if I want to route 1 MIDI channel through several different tracks, I can't. The fact that with MIDI I have to duplicate the arming, the input echoing, and the clip management, is an unwelcome road-bump in the recording process with Sonar that I don't have with other DAWs.
 
Sure, there's an argument for saying that each VSTi output should be its own audio track - fine - but that's not an argument for requiring 2 separate MIDI tracks to feed into them.