This post is in reply to Stxx problem.
 
This sounds like it might have something to do with the write mode that you are in. There are 3 different modes, Latch, Overwrite, and Touch mode. I would bet that you have it in touch mode because the expected behavior is this
 
Touch mode overwrites any existing automation data for the currently armed parameter only when the parameter is moved with the mouse or a MIDI controller. Automation writing stops when the parameter is released, and the parameter returns to any previously automated position. This mode is useful if you want to update a previous write pass, appending new automation data only where desired. When using a touch-sensitive MIDI controller, new automation data will only overwrite existing automation data when you physically touch a control.

Yeah I had a BCF and a BCR and never really got either one working to usable satisfaction. Even with all the custom mods folk did for it. Just a lot of hassle and not a lot of return (oooh, fader levels and transport? Meh,I want editing controls)
 
Cake's VS looked amazing but it's top tier and out of my price range. I'm curious about the new X-Touch (when the heck are those things shipping anyway?) because it sits nicely between a small utility unit and a MCU or Avid unit. That's the sweet spot if you ask me. $300-$500 and something with comprehensive basics AND dirt-simple assignability and some basic editing functions (a select or way to otherwise grab data would be great as it's otherwise back to the mouse for anything other than basic level changing)
 

I use a Mackie Control, the original. It works well with Sonar for fader control both tracks and buses. Pan is great too. I have no problem using it for automation. Mine is setup with touch enabled so touching a fader will select a track or buss. Obviously bank and channel buttons work well. The transport control works very well too.The way its setup with Sonar it has always had a pause ability. The jog wheel is nicely supported. Where the MC is less useful is with plugins and pro channel. This is due to no real update to the MC dll. 
 
I disagree with the statement that it is not a standard. To me it is. Whether a company implements it correctly in their emulation is a very different thing. Not that that can't be done. The SDK for it is available and as long as the hardware is capable of utilizing its protocol it should work. 

...wicked
Yeah I had a BCF and a BCR and never really got either one working to usable satisfaction. Even with all the custom mods folk did for it. Just a lot of hassle and not a lot of return (oooh, fader levels and transport? Meh,I want editing controls)

I am tracing all threads with such statements for a while. But except small problem with PC, I could not see concrete complains what does not work. Sometimes a bit tricky general ACT mapping seems like cause  "unusability", sometimes understanding the touch modes (like in the latest several posts). But neither can be "fixed" or improved in the code, by CW or moders. 
 

Cake's VS looked amazing but it's top tier and out of my price range.

VS code is the most up to date in my eyes.
 

I'm curious about the new X-Touch (when the heck are those things shipping anyway?) because it sits nicely between a small utility unit and a MCU or Avid unit.

How good it is going to work "out of the box" depends on how precise it can imitate MCU. In case it will be on BCx level, the result is the same.
 
Up to now, there is no "universal" plug-in with feed back support. I am slowly moving in that direction, but I see zero interest. That does not stop me (it is a fun project) but it does not encourage to advance. The only other way to fully support hardware surface Y is to write specific plug-in for that surface. Mackie protocol is just a proprietary protocol for particular devices, it is not a specification what arbitrary surface should send with corresponding DAW reaction, and so the plug-ins in SONAR.

Azsilow3 wrote;
Up to now, there is no "universal" plug-in with feed back support. I am slowly moving in that direction, but I see zero interest. That does not stop me (it is a fun project) but it does not encourage to advance. The only other way to fully support hardware surface Y is to write specific plug-in for that surface. Mackie protocol is just a proprietary protocol for particular devices, it is not a specification what arbitrary surface should send with corresponding DAW reaction, and so the plug-ins in SONAR.

I'm not sure what you mean here about feedback? True the MC protocol is a proprietary one but it is supported by most DAWs and some other programs such as Vegas Pro Video. 
 
The only DAW I know of that doesn't support it is MixBus but it has no MIDI support anyway. 

John
I'm not sure what you mean here about feedback? True the MC protocol is a proprietary one but it is supported by most DAWs and some other programs such as Vegas Pro Video. 

I mean there are generic plug-ins for simple MIDI (Generic and ACT), but there are no such plug-ins with MC protocol support. In the first case, code X can be configured to produce (arbitrary) action Y. In the second, code X always produce action Y. In case hardware controller does not produce exactly the same X, action Y is not possible with such device. Example: with Nanokorg in MC mode, switching between tracks and buses is not possible because there is no such (hardcoded) control and there is no way to change the reaction on other codes (except with the code modification).
Most "simple" devices can work in not MC mode and so can be used with generic plug-ins to configure desired actions. The only problem is with feedback controls (motosliders, lighting rings, etc.).
Till some truly generic (with MC protocol support) plug-in is written, the usability of particular controller depends on how close it imitate MC(U). Other approach is direct SONAR support from the hardware producer (or other developers).
 

azslow3

John
I'm not sure what you mean here about feedback? True the MC protocol is a proprietary one but it is supported by most DAWs and some other programs such as Vegas Pro Video. 

I mean there are generic plug-ins for simple MIDI (Generic and ACT), but there are no such plug-ins with MC protocol support. In the first case, code X can be configured to produce (arbitrary) action Y. In the second, code X always produce action Y. In case hardware controller does not produce exactly the same X, action Y is not possible with such device. Example: with Nanokorg in MC mode, switching between tracks and buses is not possible because there is no such (hardcoded) control and there is no way to change the reaction on other codes (except with the code modification).
Most "simple" devices can work in not MC mode and so can be used with generic plug-ins to configure desired actions. The only problem is with feedback controls (motosliders, lighting rings, etc.).
Till some truly generic (with MC protocol support) plug-in is written, the usability of particular controller depends on how close it imitate MC(U). Other approach is direct SONAR support from the hardware producer (or other developers).
 

I understand now. One big reason the MC caught on was because it wasn't up to Mackie to  provide support for different DAWs. Mackie relied on each DAW maker to write there own plugin for it. In the case of Sonar it does have a plugin for the MC. Its the MackieControl.dll in the shared surfaces directory. 
 
If a particular function is not on another surface its not because of the MC dll. Its due entirely to the maker not providing it. Yet, they still advertise it as being compatible(those that make competing CSs). But because each DAW developer is able to pick and choose what they will support on a Mackie Control it varies greatly from one DAW to the next how much is supported. The deepest support a DAW has is under Logic in Logic mode. However, the Mackie Control can do nearly all that the Logic Control can do under Logic. This has been a pet peeve of mine for as long as I have had my MC. Its a great CS I know from hands on on it the LC and a Studio Mix. I was at the introduction of the Huston too. So far no other CS has bettered the Mackie Control. 

Is anyone working on getting the MCU working 100% with sonar x3e now that sdk is available?

is there any completed dll somewhere or we need to compile our own? 
 
Hope not...

I have a feeling we all may be out of luck on this.  They opened it to be messed with and it seems that no one with the ability to do anything with it has.
 
The only moves forward I've seen around here with the Mackie related things have been with AsSlow (I'm sure I've spelled this wrong) and his work with a Mackie "preset" for the stuff he's been working on.  I don't think this is exactly the same thing, but at least something that has to do with the Mackie protocol.
 
I'm really bummed that it seems that Cakewalk themselves have just dumped this.  It worked great up until the X series and then it seems like some parts just went away.  This same thing happened with my Contour Shuttle Pro device, which still works, but not like it did when it had dedicated support inside of Sonar.  Now it has to work with keyboard commands, doesn't work when Sonar loses the focus, etc.