I must say that dropping mcu (or control surface in general) support is quite something. I would even say, as far as I know, that it's the first time in the industry.  I know Cakewalk want to do things before the competition but this one I'm not sure... ok not funny.
 
It's strange M. craig says almost no one use a control surface. Maybe footprint, cost, I don't know, but it ease the workflow so much it has become essential to me.
 
I owned a VS-700 system (awesome but only 9 faders with no possible upgrade and dropped very early) a Nucleus (totally great with other DAWs) and now checking Harrison who are suppose to release one for Mixbus one day.... if it support basic mcu and is expandable, I think it will be a winner, at least for other daws than Sonar... well, let's hope it's not over.

Up to now, we have failed to organize functioning "SONAR Control Surface Community".
 
What we have, according to the forum:

• 2 programmers which are able to use the API (myself and Stéphane)
• 2 independent projects, potentially able to deal with MCU:
  • http://forum.cakewalk.com/Custom-Version-of-Mackie-Control-Surface-Plugin-to-use-the-QCON-m3092979.aspx
  • (see my signature)
• 0 alpha/beta testers
• X (<10) potential "customers" which at least commented on both projects
• Y (<100) which periodically complain in the forum that CSes are not working for them as they want (most of them are newcomers)
• Z (>10) "hosts" which are happy with CSes they have

It is hard to imagine CW/SSL or someone else are going to invest into that direction.
 
About Mackie plug-in. It is only slightly outdated. For successful development, the requirements are:

1. The developer
2. Microsoft C++ environment with MFC (not free version)
3. The device
4. Active beta testers

I have (1) only (myself, no environment, no device).
Stéphane has also (2) and QCon Pro (a kind of 3).
But without (4) all that is not going to advance.

Anderton
I'm always shocked how few people use control surfaces. When I ask at seminars how many people use control surfaces, only a few people raise their hands. Most seem to mix with a mouse, which IMHO makes it impossible to treat a mix like a performance.

I think this post explains it all: there's apparently no market for control surfaces, hence all good ones are legacy, new ones can only be developed by the B brand because they do it under Chinese conditions (not elorabating any further) ...
 
Same applies to software development: Cakewalk says it's up to HW manufactures, HM makers say opposite cause all need to make profits to remain in business, but apparently there are no profits to be made from control surfaces ... unless you take over the entire market at once, which is probably what big B is aiming at with the X-touch series ... which is not impossible if you think how their digital mixer series took off ... and hence there soon may only be one brand in the prosumer market ...
 
As for myself, I'm really happy I got into the VS-700 before it disappeared from the market. It still works great and it's a major reason why I'm happy with Sonar. I'm after what Craig calls a performance and don't want to chase a mouse around like when editing spreadsheets etc. Personally I don't understand why only a few people are using a control surface - maybe because there always were only 2 options: cheap+limited or integrated+expensive+(meanwhile) rare ... meanwhile touch screen have appeared (and disappeared again for many, probably again those that are after a performance) ... but let's leave that topic aside as it will make this thread go on forever ...
 
However, I dread the day when Cakewalk stops supporting VS-700 or introduces/updates important features while disregarding remote control via the control surface (as we had when X1 came out) ...
 
When that happens we can on rely on independent developers and their beta versions (thanks, azslow for trying all this! I follow your work but can't invest time at the moment for serious contributions) or sell cars and kidneys to go for one of the expensive solutions that exist for other DAWs ...

Azslow I totally get your point and can't argue with anything you said. I'm one of those who complain all the time about lack of integration and you're one that accept the facts and actually bring solutions, so your attitude is extremely better than mine, no doubt about it.
 
My problem is I feel I got rubbed over the years. Notice the "I feel" part. Maybe it's not true.
 
I had put all my money in the vs700 when it got out and official support was dropped in the following year. I was very active in the VS forum at the time and we got almost no interest from Cakewalk as functions broke with new updates until they just left the concept.
 
I was extremely broke and unhappy but managed to get an SSL Nucleus years later hoping the extreme programmability would solve my requests. I was only using faders/transport control (MCU+ 1 extender). Then I realized that it was a cause of Sonar crashing on me, every days, so I disabled it and now everything work stable. I became ultra unhappy... and ultra broke.
 
Now, I understand Cakewalk cannot support every device ever created. I understand device manufacturers must insure proper implementation of most commun communication protocols.
 
But it's up to Cakewalk to insure proper MCU support. Not the end user. I have no time to learn and program C++ you know.
 
They fixed issue with some Waves and many other plugins over the years.  Why not their own MCU plugin? They integrated EUCON protocol. Same question.
 
Maybe I'm just beating a dead horse and need to move on.

Dyonight
It's strange M. craig says almost no one use a control surface. Maybe footprint, cost, I don't know, but it ease the workflow so much it has become essential to me.

 
Well my evidence is anecdotal, not scientific, but I've given so many workshops/seminars and the answer is so consistent it really does seem control surfaces are not a priority for most users. I think there are several issues at play.

• Expense. They're hardware.
• General-purpose devices have a learning curve because you have to remember what assignable buttons and faders do, and dedicated devices have to sell in big numbers to justify their existence.
• More and more users didn't get started with a physical mixer, and don't know what they're missing.

That said, as long as I'm content with just the basics (faders, pan, mute, solo, arm record, etc.) then Mackie controllers work fine with SONAR. Last time I tried a Nucleus it worked fine except for bus control. Once I ventured into that area, I couldn't get back to the regular functions. However I have not tried the most recent template so maybe that works now...maybe not.
 
I wish I could give azslow3 more support in his venture. He seems very bright and dedicated, and offered his work to the forum. The problem is that the VS-700 is working for me so I'm not actively searching for a solution, and my time is extremely limited.
 
I do think the VS-700 will continue to work with SONAR for quite some time. I did "divorce" the audio section from the controller because I preferred the audio quality of the TASCAM US-4x4 and most of the time, don't need more than four simultaneous ins. But once I installed the console-only driver and followed the instructions on how to set the DIP switch on the back, it's been working fine for me.
 
Touch is interesting. It's not the same experience as faders, but I think it could be. Right now touch is trying to "force-fit" itself to the hardware paradigm, but I think new approaches with touch could be the answer.

Thanks Craig, you're probably 100% right, I guess I became too emotionnaly invested in this control surface thing...
 
Nevertheless, I think some of my points are still valid, from my perspective at least. 

Anderton
 
Touch is interesting. It's not the same experience as faders, but I think it could be. Right now touch is trying to "force-fit" itself to the hardware paradigm, but I think new approaches with touch could be the answer.

Sorry - I don't mean to hijack the thread but after reading this I had to share a thought regarding TOUCH in Platinum, largely because I agree with this sentiment, but am concerned about the likelihood of any significant improvement in this area. (To avoid some of the inevitable piling on and flaming, I love Platinum and am enjoying it a lot - pretty much moved to S_Plat exclusively (from X3 Producer)).
In my view however - there are almost NO improvements to Touch in Platinum. (the forthcoming touch MIDI keyboard is not likely something I am going to make a lot of use of, except potentially for auditioning sounds).
If I have a criticism of Cakewalk (have been an exclusive user and regular upgrader since Home Studio 9) it is their propensity to introduce new features and carry them through one (at most) iteration of upgrade then move on to something else (CAL, staff view, ACT, the step sequencer, Rapture, DPro - not to mention Kinetic and Project 5 are examples). I invested in a big Touch Screen monitor when X3 first came out and make modest use of it, but to not have even basic Win 8 touch features available in Console view - (Like a "right click" mouse option on faders??? - have to use the mouse) is a bit of a head scratcher. (these are things that I can easily do with Touch outside of SONAR, but not in it - even though it is supposedly touch centric). Cakewalk runs the very real risk of going from being perceived as a market leader in Touch technology (when X3 came out) - to being a follower (which they may already be). If they want to be in the Touch game - and promote themselves in this respect, they have to (in my view) become more aggressive in how they tackle this technology and roll out some real and significant innovation in this area.
This sounds a lot more negative than I intended it to sound - I have no interest in looking elsewhere and I love and will continue to support Cakewalk and SONAR -
Hope this doesn't devolve into something negative - it was really intended to just outline how I feel about the product and Cake's conservatism when it comes to rolling out their features - in particular - TOUCH.
(ok Flame on.)

Dyonight
Thanks Craig, you're probably 100% right, I guess I became too emotionnaly invested in this control surface thing...
 
Nevertheless, I think some of my points are still valid, from my perspective at least.

I think your points are indeed valid. I was just providing a perspective learned the hard way The VS-700 wasn't my first dance with a hardware controller...however it does work. So does the Nucleus for the basics, and it is a gorgeous piece of SSL kit...
 
I think a lot of the problem is that hardware doesn't change, software does and all the time. So the software has to conform to the hardware. Unless there's a financial incentive to do so, that's hard to make happen.
 
The VS-700 did not sell well as far as I know. I don't want to get into "dirty laundry" world, but based on what I've seen in the industry, Roland is to be commended for continuing to provide repair services and keeping drivers relatively up to date longer than many other companies would have. However, I too wish the VS-700 would have done better.
 

Brando
This sounds a lot more negative than I intended it to sound - I have no interest in looking elsewhere and I love and will continue to support Cakewalk and SONAR -
Hope this doesn't devolve into something negative - it was really intended to just outline how I feel about the product and Cake's conservatism when it comes to rolling out their features - in particular - TOUCH.
(ok Flame on.)

Sorry, not flame-worthy
 
I'm going to speculate here...please note I have not asked Cakewalk about this and I could be 100% right or 100% wrong.
 
It seems like Windows 10 is going to be significantly different from Windows 8. Largely, the former mobile team is driving the train and while that scares some people (oh no! my desktop is going to turn into a tablet!!) IMHO it's harder to get mobile right. If they can do that, making the OS work on a desktop will be relatively simple by comparison.
 
If this is the case, Cakewalk might feel it's not worth putting the effort into a big update for Windows 8 when they would just have to do it all over again for Windows 10. But I don't know.
 
 

The one issue I have using my graphite 49 in mackie mode is that say I have audio tracks 1-12 and the surface is set to track 1 as the base (controlling tracks 1-8), then I hide tracks 3-6 in sonar I'm expecting the graphite to control now tracks 1-2 and 7-12.  Unfortunately, the graphite still controls tracks 1-8.  Not sure if this is something easily fixed, but it was a bit perplexing when I first encountered the problem.