200bpm

azslow3
In general, all control surfaces are more or less "dumb midi controllers". What they do depends from the "smartness" of the software which translate signals into particular DAW operations (and back).
Since CW has written specialized plug-ins for MCU and VS, I think they are "the best".
 
Once I finish my plug-in, any CS will be as good as any other for SONAR

This is great.  Did you use the cakewalk plugin source as a baseline?  

I use the IDL for the source. But the rest is rewritten.
 

Is it possible in Sonar to modify what Sonar does in response to the MCU?

With my plug-in - yes. That is the whole purpose. Please note that I can not modify what SONAR can do, it is defined by SONAR Control Surface API and only CW can modify it. The (almost) whole set of such actions you can find on my site.
 

The QCON Pro implements MCU protocol, but apparently there are some differences (and the button layout is different).  When you start the QCON, it asks you to select a DAW mode (cubase, reason, etc) and once the software is started, connection is established and you can use the surface.
 
The problem in sonar is that despite which profile is selected, the handshake is never established and the surface does nothing.  Threads on the QCON suggest methods for sending a sysex to the qcon, but the QCON will still be operating in "Cubase Mode" which has the buttons programmed to do something useful in cubase.

That small part is still missing... but it is only 2-3 days of work away. The idea is simple: you decide what and when should be sent. Obviously the handshake protocol should be known for that.
 
That is a bit "gray area". In case documentation describe that commands, everything is clear. But in case the commands are "sniffed" on the MIDI level, I am not sure about legal aspects. For those who immediately answer "no, sniffing is illegal as any RE", please read MIDI specification about third party protocol extensions...
 

To get this working well in sonar would need the ability to custom map MCU commands from the surface to do the desired thing in sonar.

That part is already working in my plug-in for more then 90% of all possible actions (most important unimplemented actions are the jogger and somehow related scrub).

I would be happy to help you alpha test it.   The QCON Pro is all wrapped up to send back, but if I can get it working I might keep it.  This would hinge upon the abililty to map the MCU commands sent from the QCON into desired sonar action (within set of what CW has implemented.)
 
Also, I was wrong about the sysex; I believe the QCON needs to send a signal to the MCU plug-in, not the other way around.  Since you are writing the plug-in, it may be possible to waive this requirement.  The QCON is an attractive piece, it would be nice to have a way to easily work with this.
 
I am a software engineer but am just now learning about control surfaces.  I spent last night mapping my Axiom 61 using ACT and I am questioning whether a Mackie Control is worth the additional complexity, given how much the axiom can do.  Is it worth going to all the work to setup and integrate the QCON/MCU if I don't end up using it?  
 
My reasoning is that if the MCU cant do something fundamental, then it is a waste of space.  When using the QCON with Samplitude, it did everything well EXCEPT it could not define a range (for looping or punch) AFAIK.   If the MCU or clone can define ranges and do every transport operation with hardware, then it would be a big win.  Otherwise, if my hand floats to the mouse every other second to control the transport, then it is not worthwhile.
 
I'm trying to increase my productivity and enjoyment, not launch into a technical project.   My requirements for an ideal control surface in sonar are:
 
*Enable full transport and track view control (ranges, zoom, etc.)
*Enable seamless control of ProChannel.
 

200bpm
I would be happy to help you alpha test it.   The QCON Pro is all wrapped up to send back, but if I can get it working I might keep it.  This would hinge upon the abililty to map the MCU commands sent from the QCON into desired sonar action (within set of what CW has implemented.)

Please do not make your decision based on my plug-in... It is a hobby project, without time line, reliable support, etc. I can not say you when it is ready for professional use. In addition, I do not have any plans to get QCON. That means in case something goes wrong and I can not reproduce that with TouchDAW, you are on your own with debugging.
 

Also, I was wrong about the sysex; I believe the QCON needs to send a signal to the MCU plug-in, not the other way around.  Since you are writing the plug-in, it may be possible to waive this requirement.  The QCON is an attractive piece, it would be nice to have a way to easily work with this.
 
I am a software engineer but am just now learning about control surfaces.

If you have Visual Studio, you can modify CW sources. Mackie plug-in is waiting for response from the surface, but your can easily bypass it if required. Also remapping is just exchanging related constants.
 

 I spent last night mapping my Axiom 61 using ACT and I am questioning whether a Mackie Control is worth the additional complexity, given how much the axiom can do.  Is it worth going to all the work to setup and integrate the QCON/MCU if I don't end up using it?  

For ACT mapping my plug-in can help even in case you do not use it with the controller. You see the mapping, can press buttons in the window instead of touching hardware controls, and you immediately see the result from changes. Do not forget to read my comments (if your good defined mapping no longer works after SONAR restart, you will find the reason in these comments...).
 

*Enable seamless control of ProChannel.

May be in X4... The API in X2 (I have not intensively checked X3, but it looks like the same) has several problems with PC.

azslow3 

*Enable seamless control of ProChannel.

May be in X4... The API in X2 (I have not intensively checked X3, but it looks like the same) has several problems with PC.

OK, this makes the decision easier.  I can more easily control the PC with ACT and Axiom controller.
 
Today I am playing with Samplitude Mackie Control editor and it is fairly well featured.  It has a "midi monitor" and learn function similar to ACT.  The Samplitude ProX "Silver" version is a free download (google).  It has some limitations, but you may wish to look at their mackie control editor to give you some ideas.
 
The QCON implements a subset of Mackie Control.  There are less buttons.  Because less buttons, some of the features have been dropped.  (There is no "control" button, for instance.) It is/was my hope that key features could be remapped to other buttons.  It seems like I will be able to do this in Samplitude, but because Sonar X3 does not allow control of PC from MCU, I will never get it working as well as I would like.  Sadly, I will have to return this.
 
Hopefully Cakewalk is working on a killer touch interface which will someday make control surfaces obsolete.  Otherwise there is the upcoming X-touch that appears to implement the full MCU command set.

azslow3
 
If you have Visual Studio, you can modify CW sources. Mackie plug-in is waiting for response from the surface, but your can easily bypass it if required. Also remapping is just exchanging related constants.
 

I am primary a C++/Java  Unix/Linux developer but have a Win desktop for development with open source tools.  
 
When Cakewalk provided the source for their MC plugin, did they release it as a VisualStudio project with build targets/dependencies already defined?   Or is it a source dump?
 
I admit I'm intrigued about making a version of the plug-in to support QCON based on one of the built in profiles.  It might actually be fairly easy.
 
Edit: Wow, its been many years since I explored the Microsoft tools; it appears they have free versions of VS.